1920-06-16

INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. A. BOYS (South Simcoe) present ed the .following report of the Special Committee to whom was referred Bill No. 14 to amend the Indian Act:
1.	Your committee convened on the 31st day of March, 1920, and thereafter held seventeen meetings, hearing thirty-five Indian witnesses from various parts of Canada, and in addition heard long and able addresses from three counsel learned in the law who appeared for the Six Nation Indians and certain of the Allied Tribes of British Columbia.
2.	Having given Bill No. 14 careful consideration, your committee have agreed to report the same with amendments, and for the information of the House report herewith their minutes of evidence and the exhibits filed in connection therewith.
3.	That in the opinion of your committee the administration of the affairs of an Indian community or band by an hereditary council may be detrimental to the best interests and progress of such Indians, and your committee would therefore recommend that wherever such a system exists the Government should ascertain whether the majority of the male members of the band of the full age of twenty-one years, are in favour of the adoption of an elective system of councillors, and if so, that the provisions of the Indian Act in this regard should be put into operation as soon as possible.
[Stage Direction]
4.	During the meetings held by your committee many of the Indian Chiefs expressed great satisfaction with the opportunity the meetings gave them of presenting their views to a Committee of Parliament, and many intimated that if this opportunity was given more frequently it would lead to a better understanding of Indian Affairs, and having in view the strong representations made in this connection, your committee would recommend that the rules of the House be amended to provide for the appointment of a Select Standing Committee upon Indian Affairs.
5.	Your committee therefore commend the suggestions contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 hereof to the favourable consideration of the Government.
All which is respectfully submitted.
Signed W. A. Boys, Chairman.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
Mr. W. F. O'CONNOR.

Mr GAUVREAU:: Is it true that two first-class machines which were in gioiod working- order at the Rivitre-du-Loup shops were scrapped after their transfer to the St. Malo shops?
IHon. J. D. REID: No.
BARON iSOHEDKING.


Mr. JACOBS:: 1.	Did a man calling himself Baron iSchelking obtain entry to Canada during the war?
2.	If so, when?

3.	Was he accompanied by a woman purporting to be his wife?
4.	Were they refused admission to Canada by the immigration authorities at Victoria or Vancouver?
5.	If so, for what reason?
6.	Was the case appealed?
7'. If s<o, with what result?
8.	To jwhat nationality dad iSchelking belong?
9.	Was the woman who accompanied him a German, formerly of Berlin, and did she join ISchelking at Shanghai?
l'O. Has the Government any information as to the history or character of the woman prior to her entry into Canada?
il(l. Were the authorities aware of the fact that the couple were travelling as husband and wife?
112. Were the authorities aware that the couple had been refused admission to the United iStates by the immigration authorities?
13. What representations did Schelking make as to his activities in Berlin?
/14. Has the Government any report as to whether Schelking's statements were true?
15.	What information is on file in the records of the Dominion iSecret Service, or of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, respecting .Schelking and the woman who accompanied him?
16.	Is it a fact on iSdhelking's arrival in Montreal he delivered inflammatory speeches against Jews, charging them with being responsible for much of the trouble existing in Russia during the war?
17.	Is the Government aware that the speeches made by iSchelking as above mentioned gave great offence to Canadian Jewish citizens, inasmuch as his statements were outrageous and atrocious slanders?
18.	Is it a fact that after victimizing a number of hotels ISchelking and his companion disappeared?
19.	Has the Government knowledge of the present whereabouts of iSchelking and his companion?


Rt. Hon. A. L. SIFTON:: 1.	Yes.	*
2.	He arrived at Vancouver on the SS. Empress of Russia the 1st April, 1918.
3.	Yes.
4.	Baron Schelking and bis wife were not destined to Canada, but to the United States. They were refused entry to the United States by American immigration officers at Vancouver and they made an appeal to Washington. Pending the outcome o-f the appeal Baron Schelking and wife were allowed to remain in Canada. The appeal to- Washington was dismissed and Baron Schelking then made application to remain in Canada, and he and his wife were brought before a Board of Inquiry which resulted in their rejection.
5.	That they had come to Canada from Japan instead of from the 'country to which they belonged and which had issued passport in their favour, viz., Russia.
6.	Yes.
7.	The appeal was allowed on the understanding that Baron Schelking and his

wife would be permitted to remain in Canada for the time being.
8.	Russian.
9.	Baron Schelking claimed that his wife was born at Strassibourg, Alsace, and that be was married .to her in Russia. In support of this he produced Russian passport No. 375 vised at Yokohama on the 10th November, 1917.
10.	No information.
11.	Yes.
12.	Yes.
13.	Baron Schelking claimed that he was for a time in the diplomatic service of Russia and while in that service spent some time in Berlin.
14.	Not beyond the documents he carried.
15.	Confidential reports concerning Schelking.
16.	No information beyond the fact that certain letters or interviews purporting to come from Baron Schelking have appeared in the Canadian press.
17.	No information.
18.	Answered by No. 17.
19.	Answered by No. 17.


COMMISSIONS TO N.C.O'S OF THE PERMANENT FORCE.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	How many N.C.O'S of the permanent force received commissions overseas?
2.	How many have been retained in their commission rank?
3.	How many have been retired to pension?
4.	What ages are the men who have been retired to pension?


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE:: 1.	130.
2.	37.
3.	49.
4.	1, 29 years; 2, 30 years; 2, 31 years; 5, 32 years; 2, 33 years; 5, 34 years; 3, 35 years; 3, 36 years; 4, 37 years; 4, 39 years; 3, 40 years; 1, 41 years; 3, 42 years; 4, 43 years; 2, 44 years; 1, 45 years; 1, 47 years; 1, 48 years; 1, 55 years; 1, 56 years. Total, 49.


QUEBEC AND SAGUENAY RAILWAY.
Mr. STEIN:: 1.	Has the Government taken possession of the Quebec and Saguenay Railway?
2.	If so, when?
3.	Is the Government operating the said Quebec and Saguenay Railway through the Board of Directors of the Canadian National Railways, or otherwise?
4.	If so, since when?


Hon. J. D. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	March 4, 1919.
3.	This line is still in the hands of the contractors and is being operated under an arrangement made with them.
4.	September 24, 1919.


STEAMERS LADY EVELYN AND CHAMPLAIN.
Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	When were the steamers Lady Evelyn and Champlain sold
2.	To whom were they sold?
3.	Were those steamers advertised for sale and were tenders called for?
4.	At what price were they sold?
5.	Have they been paid for?


Rt. Hon. A. L. SIFTON:: 1. The Lady Evelyn sold 24th April,
1919.	The Champlain was sold in March,
1920.
2. The Lady Evelyn and the Champlain were sold to The Gulf of St. Lawrence Shipping and Trading Company, Quebec.
3.	The Lady Evelyn was included with other vessels advertised for sale by the Naval Department in February, 1919. The only tender received was for $20,000. The "Champlain," yes.
4.	The Lady Evelyn, $40,000; The Champlain, $61,050.
5.	The Lady Evelyn, $34,000 has been paid. Balance, $6,000 held pending settlement of a claim that complete equipment was not handed over with the steamer. The Champlain, $13,102.50 cash. Balance *secured by endorsed notes maturing in 3, 6, 9 and 12 months bearing interest at 6 per cent.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH NORTH BAY.
Mr. McDONALD:: 1.	How many sittings were held by the Railway Commission to fix compensation for damages caused by the passing of the Canadian Northern through North Bay?
2.	Who presided over the said sittings?
3.	What were the awards made?
4.	To whom were they paid?
5.	What was the total cost of the said sittings?
6.	What was the amount paid for counsel fees?
7.	What amount was paid for witnesses?
8.	To whom were the amounts paid?


Hon. J. D. REID:: As the answer is rather lengthy I would ask that this question stand as an order for return. The answer will be laid on the Table now. PROPOSED DRY DOCK AT VICTORIA, B.C.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: .
1.	Has the Government reached a conclusion on the proposal to build a dry dock at or near the city of Victoria, B.C.?

2.	When will the work he commenced?
3.	What is the estimated cost?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to build this proposed dry dock as a Government work?


Hon. J. D. HELD:: 1.	Yes.
2.	As soon as conditions will justify
3.	Between ?5,000,000 and 16,000,000.
4.	Yes.


PROPOSED DRY DOCK AT VANCOUVER, B.C.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	Has an agreement been made between the Government and Messrs. J. Coughlan & Sons to build a dry dock in Vancouver, B.C., under the provisions of the statute related to the construction of dry docks?
2.	What Is the date of this agreement?
3.	Has it been executed by both parties thereto?
4.	If it has not been executed, what is the cause of delay?


John Dowsley Reid: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Form of agreement was submitted to the legal representatives of Messrs. Coughlan & Sons on 10th May, but has not as yet been signed and returned to the department for completion. No information in the department as to cause of delay.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. McDonald :
1.	How many sittings were held by the Railway Commission to fix compensation for damages caused by the passing of the Canadian Northern through North Bay?
2.	Who presided over the said sittings?
3.	What were the awards made?
4.	To whom were they paid?
5.	What was the total cost of the said sittings?	-
6.	What was -the amount paid for counsel fees?
7.	What amount was paid for witnesses?
8.	To whom were the amounts paid?

Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue, I move thait the -House do this day resolve itself into 'Committee of the Whole to consider the resolution standing in his name to amend the Customs Act.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am under the impression, without having had an opportunity to examine the -matter carefully, that this motion will require unanimous consent.
Unanimous consent given.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

On m-otion of right ho®. Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) the House w-ent into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Customs Act, and to provide that the Governor in Council may from time to time make regulations for or relating to the exportation of any article, commodity or material which is produced or manufactured in Canada, and which is, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, necessary or desirable for the use -or consumption of the Canadian people, or for the encouragement, maintenance or preservation of any trade, industry, business or occupation, and may by such regulations order and direct that any such article, commodity or material shall be exported only under license issued by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue, or by an officer appointed upon the minister's recommendation for that purpose; and that the issue of any such license, and the exercise of any right or privilege thereby conferred, shall be subject to such conditions as the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue shall prescribe;
That every such regulation shall have force and effect after it has been published in the Canada Giazette, and that it shall be laid before Parliament within fifteen days after the date thereof if Parliament is then dn session and, if not, within the first fifteen days of the session held next after the date thereof, and shall remain in force until the day immediately succeeding the day of prorogation of that session of -Parliament and no longer-, unless during that session it be approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament; and
That any person violating any provision of any such regulation shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars for each violation.
He said: This is an important resolution. I am asking the House to go into committee on- it now so that I may introduce the Bill. After the Bill has been introduced, and if i-t -receives the approval of the House upon its second reading, I shall move that it be referred -to -a -Select Committee of the House before it is taken up in Committee of the Whole. I have -spoken to my hon. friend who leads the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and also to the member for Marquette (Mr. Urerar), suggesting thait that course be followed. I should like to have -the resolution- adopted, if the committee approves, pro -forma, with, of course, full liberty of discussion when the Bill is taken up in Committee of the Whole after it has been considered by Ithe -Special -Committee to which I have referred.
Mr. BUREAU:: When the Bill is taken up in Committee of the Whole, the chairman and the committee as well are inclined to adhere to the rule that the Bill be discussed clause by clause and that the discussion be relevanlt to the clause under considers tion-. I understand that this legislation

proposes to vest in the Governor in Council power to prevent exports iat any time. Is that the object?


Robert Laird Borden: lit provides lor the regulation of export as set forth in the resolution. I should inform my hon. friend that the Governor in Council has no desire to be burdened with responsibility in respect to these matters. That must be apparent to hon. gentlemen in view of the very great burdens and responsibilities in this regard which were imposed upon the Government under the War Measures Act. I have no doubt that some amendments will be proposed, and, doubtless, adopted by the committee to which this Bill will be referred. When the Bill is taken up in Committee of the Whole I shall be not only willing but anxious that /the fullest discussion with regard to its provisions shall take place. I assure my hon. friend that I shall raise no /technical objection so far as that is concerned.


Jacques Bureau: Shall we be permitted to discuss the principle of the whole legislation when the Bill is taken up in committee?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly, if it is not discussed on the second reading.


Jacques Bureau: To my mind this is the most important piece of legislation that has been brought before Parliament this session. Generally, restrictions upon importation have been regarded as,-well, I might even use the word immoral; they are such a restraint of trade that people will not put up with them. Under the constitution of the United States restricted importation was forbidden. Of course, we shall have to go into the matter, but it seems to me that this proposed legislation will require a good deal of explanation on the part of the Government. For my part, I would like to know of some concrete cases in connection with which legislation of this kind becomes necessary in time of peace and under ordinary conditions. We complain that we have a large debt; that our currency is at a discount; that the balance of trade is against us. Now we are going to place in the hands of the Govern-jmenb the power to neisfadct exports of any kind of commodity. Whatever the reason may be, I do not think that there is any emergency to call for action of that kind. Unless the special committee submit a report on the matter which changes my mind, I shall be absolutely and entirely opposed to vesting any such power in the Governor in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps my
hon. friend is not alive to the situation that confronts the country at the present time. Important and very urgent representations have been made to the Government as to the necessity of some control of export in respect to important articles. For example, we are told that a large amount of coal is going out of the country while industries are suffering through lack of it. The item of sugar is also under consideration; the necessity for some action in that .regard has been strongly urged upon us. Then, there is the question of newsprint. .Urgent representations have been made from different parts of the country that because of the exportation of an amount not exceeding two per cent of the exportable surplus, the shutting down of some twenty-seven Canadian newspapers is involved.


Jacques Bureau: I understood that it was fifteen per cent of the production.


Robert Laird Borden: I am informed that only two per cent of the total exportable surplus of that particular article is involved in the question. The Governor in Council has no desire to assume burdens or responsibilities in this respect. I hope .that the special committee to whom this Bill will be referred will find some means of relieving the Governor in Council from a duty which involves great responsibility and is wholly invidious. No one would be more delighted than I if that committee .could find some effective method which .will meet the conditions of public urgency now confronting the country and at the same time relieve the Government from additional responsibility. All I ask, however, at the present moment is that the matter may be expedited by passing the .resolution pro forma, and upon the second reading or in committee the House will be ,at liberty to decide whether or not this legislation or any legislation of an analogous character ought to be passed by this House, or whether we should allow matters to take the course they are now taking.


Mr. FIELDING:: There are abundant
reasons why it would not be advisable for us to have a protracted discussion at the present time, although there are some matters which we. might well consider before we come to a conclusion. Therefore, I trust it will be the view of the committee that, without committing ourselves to the principle of the resolution we should now allow the resolution to pass the present stage.

Mr. MoMASTER: I should be sorry to disagree with or to fail to follow any arrangement made by the leader of the party to which I belong, but this proposed legislation is to my mind so vicious that I wish to have an opportunity given on the introduction of the resolution of speaking to it. It would be very well for the country to be fully advised as to what the Government purpose doing. I would have thought that the Canadian nation was thoroughly sick of the Government endeavouring to control industry, and it is surely bad enough to have a protectionist government in power with the right to control imparts into the country, but it would be worse to have them control exports from the country. I should like, if that could be agreed to by all, to have a general discussion on the introduction of this resolution. We cannot canvass the situation too fully, and now is the time to do it. If what is proposed to be done is done, it means that the matter goes to a committee and that it will not get back into this House until the middle of next week. We are hopeful of being able to bring the session to a termination before Dominion Day. What will happen if we do not have this discussion now will be that if this legislation is passed, it will have tea be rushed through in the dying hours of the session. I protest most respectfully against that line of conduct, and I would ask that the rules of the House be adhered to and a discussion take place.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not asking for any departure from the rules of the House. The purpose that I have in view is one that should meet entirely the view of the hon. gentleman. It is highly probable, in fact, practically certain that the measure to which the House will eventually be .asked to give its assent, will differ in important respects from that which is embodied ;n this resolution, and for the reason that I want the House to have full opportunity of discussion, I am endeavouring now to advance the proceedings in order that the measure may be referred to the proposed committee and be reported upon as soon as possible, so that the hon. gentleman and those who concur in his view may have the full opportunity of debating it which all of us desire.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Might I say to the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) that I think he misunderstands the remarks which the Prime Minister (.Sir Robert Borden) made a moment ago when

he interprets them as meaning that there had been any arrangement or understanding between the Prime Minister and myself in regard to this matter? The Prime Minister, as he stated this afternoon, informed me that in connection with this resolution there were certain matters which he believed could be more expeditiously and carefully dealt with toy a committee representative of both sides of the House, and that we would make more progress with what may be proposed in the way of legislation, through considering the matter in special committee and having a report for the House to act upon, rather than by having a general discussion which might range very far beyond the purpose of this resolution. When the Prime Minister spoke to me in those words, I thought the course he was suggesting was in the interest of expediting the business of the House .and that it was the part of wisdom not to bring up in this House for discussion many subjects that, perhaps, might be construed as coming within the scope of the resolution, but which, if it went to a committee, would be eliminated. There has been no understanding. I feel, however, in view of what the Prime Minister has said in the House today, which is exactly what he said to me privately, that the course which the Prime Minister has suggested is a wise course to pursue.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a correct statement of what took place between the hon. member (Mr. Mackenzie King) and myself with regard to the matter, and the same is true with regard to my conversation with the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar).


Mr. JACOBS:: Any remarks which I have to make upon this proposed legislation, I can withhold until it comes back to the House on the report of the Special Committee. What I wish to say, however, is this, that so far as I know, there seems to have been the same urgent necessity for this legislation since February 26. This House has been in session since February 26, and we have heard nothing at all about important legislation of this kind until we are almost prepared to pack up and leave the city. It seems rather strange on the part of the Government that they should have waited until this moment before bringing to the attention of the House this important legislation.


Robert Laird Borden: If conditions were such as my hon. friend describes, this

legislation should have been introduced at an earlier date; but, as a matter cff fact, the conditions to which I alluded a moment ago, have only recently developed, and for that reason the legislation could not have been proposed at an earlier date.


Samuel William Jacobs: Might I point out to my right hon. friend that we have been dealing with the licensing of sugar for a considerable time back, and it is now proposed to extend the scope of the law to include other commodities?
Resolution reported and concurred in. Thereupon Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 182, to amend the Customs Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce):: Has any arrangement been made with the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) who has returned from Europe, as regards his intention to address the House shortly in regard to the League of Nations?


Robert Laird Borden: I have no arrangement with the hon. member for St. .Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) on that question. If the hon. gentleman returns to the House he is, of course, at liberty, as is every other hon. member, to speak upon any matter that is relevant to any question before the House. He may take advantage of some appropriate estimate in .Committee of Supply to make a statement with regard to the matter.


POST OFFICE AND CUSTOMS DEPARTMENTS. .
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. C. ETHIER (Laval-Two Mountains) :: May I ask if it is true as stated by the press of the country, and especially by the Montreal Gazette of the 14th instant, that an Order in Council was passed on the 31st of May appointing Messrs. Griffen-kagen and Associates, Limited, of Chicago, as experts to reorganize the Civil Service, .particularly the Post Office and Customs Departments, at a salary of $10,000 per month, with travelling expenses, and so forth; and if so, whether the Government 230
intends to lay on the Table for the information of the House that Order in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend upon referring to the Order Paper will observe that there is a question with regard to that matter, and also a motion. My hon. friend, who is an old member of the House, will realize the impropriety on my part of anticipating the motion and the question to which I have alluded.
. RUMOURED STRIKE OF POSTMEN. v On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. A. B. McOOIG (Kent):: May I ask the Acting Postmaster General if there are any new developments with regard to the rumoured strike by the postmen?


Hon. N. W. ROWELL:: I am not aware of any new developments. I have seen the statement in the paper that they do not intend to strike, and I should expect that to be true from the knowledge I have of the .circumstances.
, SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1916, AMENDMENT.



EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.

[Stage Direction]
, On motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) the House resumed, from June 15, consideration of the proposed resolution precedent to the amendment of the Special War Revenue Act, 1915, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
["Mr Speaker, after the very excellent presentation of the case by the hon. Minister of Militia in support of the motion before the House, it would scarcely be necessary for any member on this side to speak in support of the motion. I rise to reply to some observations offered by the hon. and gallant member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) in which he referred, in terms certainly not acceptable to me, to General Sir Arthur Currie. I feel, as one who -served under General Sir Arthur Currie for a long time and who knows him intimately, that I might be expected by the House and by the country to rise in my place and say something in reply to the observations of the hon. member (Sir Sam Hughes).\nHon. members know what weight may properly be attached to observations of this nature reflecting on General Sir Arthur Currie coming from the hon. and gallant member for Vi-cto-ri-a (Six Sam Hughes). Incidentally I may say that no mam in this House enjoys in larger measure the affection and esteem of hon. members on both sides than does the hon. an-d gallant member for Victoria. Nevertheless, for the reasons I have given I feel that -something ought to be said in reply.\nGeneral Sir Arthur Currie was the Commander off Canada's victorious army in the Great War; subsequently he was called to the command of Canada's army at home; and finally he has been called to the great office of principal of McGill University. Any", u"man who bad attained to any one of these offices might be considered a great man; but the man who has attained to all of them is,, in my judgment, indeed a great man. I venture to submit with all due respect to the hon. and gallant member for Victoria, that he ought not from his place in the House to have referred to General Sir Arthur Currie as he did to-day, knowing quite we'll that what he said would go out through the press to the country as a .statement seriously reflecting upon Sir Arthur Currie as a general and a gentleman.\nI served1 under Sir Arthur Currie for some two years, and I .served with him for some two years more. I found hiim to be a man of character,-and character is the supreme military virtue. He was an honest man, a just man, and a fair man. I neve- heard him refer to any officer or soldier in terms suggestive of any personal animosity, and yet I have known him on occasion to be severe and, I think, justly and properly severe. He was a great tactician and a great strategist. Upon all occasion\xae he displayed the greatest concern in regard to the future movements of troops, and no man grieved more sincerely over the losses we .suffered than did General Sir Arthur Currie.\nI have said that he was a great strategist and a great tactician-in a word, a great general. In saying that I am stating the opinion of those who .served under him and who were competent to express an opinion, and I am also stating the opinion of distinguished generals and leaders in the Allied Armies, all of whom have placed on record their opinion that Sir Arthur Currie was a great leader and a great soldier.\nThe hon. and gallant member for Victoria has referred to a propaganda in support of the assertion that Sir Arthur Currie w.as .a great general. I. am not aware of any such propaganda, nor am I aware that any such was necessary. On the other hand, I have been aware for some time that there has been a propaganda by assertions made, .covertly and indirectly, to make it appear that Sir Arthur Currie in the pursuit of his own glory sacrificed his men,- that many men might have been alive to-day but for the desire of General Sir Arthur Currie to obtain some personal distinction. I say that there has been a propaganda to that effect, and it has been supported and carried on by those not competent to have any sound opinion upon the question. It has been a very cruel and unjust form o>f propaganda, because it has not only interfMr. Grlesbach.]\nested those who are more or less casual observers; it has touched the heartstrings of those who have suffered personally in this war in the loss of those who were near and dear to them. I say it was an unkind and ungenerous propaganda, and I regret that the hon. and gallant member for Victoria (Sir -Sam Hughes) has had his share in that propaganda in this House and without this House. As an old comrade, one who had the most complete opportunity of studying and of measuring General Currie as a soldier and as a man, I should like to say that in my humble opinion he is a great Canadian and a great soldier, and that he deserves well of this country.\nMotion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply."]
The CHAIRMAN:: When the House was last in committee on this resolution we had reached paragraph (d) of resolution 7, to .which an amendment had been moved, which will be found on page 3723 of Hansard.


Mr. HAROLD:: Is the Minister of Finance going to add to the list of exemptions the materials and supplies that enter into the manufacture of binder twine?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: As the fibre
which is used in the manufacture of 'binder twine is the important item, and as we are not adding in any way to the burdens of agriculture, I move to add to the list of exemptions after the words "heating purposes" in the amendment to paragraph (d) .of resolution 7, the words " fibre for use only in the manufacture of binder twine."
Amendment to the amendment agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[Stage Direction]


(e) That the provisions of this Resolution respecting a tax on sales shall he deemed to have come into force on the 11th day of May, 1920, and to have applied to all goods imported or taken out of warehouses for consumption on and after that day, and to have also applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.
. Mr. ROBB: Inasmuch as there have been some amendments to the resolutions since they were brought down, how does the Minister of Finance propose to readjust the payments that have already been made?
['As the fibre\nwhich is used in the manufacture of \'binder twine is the important item, and as we are not adding in any way to the burdens of agriculture, I move to add to the list of exemptions after the words "heating purposes" in the amendment to paragraph (d) .of resolution 7, the words " fibre for use only in the manufacture of binder twine."\nAmendment to the amendment agreed to.']
Henry Lumley Drayton: So far as these new proposals are concerned, the whole of them will have to be straightened out in the Bill which will be brought down. We are now considering merely the principle. ,The principle will be, of course, that the resolutions shall take effect in accordance with the usual practice, when they are brought down, and similarly with the .amendments.
, Resolution agreed to.
8.	That a stamp tax of two cents he imposed, levied and collected on promissory notes and hills of exchange of the value of one hundred dollars or less, and that a tax of two cents additional he imposed on every one hundred dollars or fractional part thereof in excess of one hundred dollars.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is an
amendment to this resolution, of *which notice has already been given. It appears that credits in certain businesses evidenced by promissory notes, are renewed from day to day. In the grain business, for example, the custom is to give a demand note showing the exact amount of advances each day. The usual period of credit is three months, and if the two cents were to be charged on every hundred dollars of each note each day there would be a multiplication of the tax, although noit of credit. iSome of the elevator companies have shown that transactions often involve a balance of from five to six millions dollars at the end of the day's work, and that there may be changes resulting from sales cutting that down probably a million or a million and a half, while there may be further obligations resulting from purchases which might increase it a million or a million and a half or two millions. But the note for the whole amount is taken in each instance. It is proposed to modify that in the Bill. Then, in order properly to cover the question, it is also necessary to place a similar tax on advances made by banks hy way of overdraft. Such advances are probably the most unsatisfactory method by which the banking

business can be carried on, and it is the only way in which an advance is not evidenced, as it should be evidenced, by the signature of the debtor. Advances by way of overdraft are entirely illegal in the United States. It is not proposed here to make them so at the present time, but simply to make the credit which is obtained by the advance subject to the same two cent stamp tax as the credit given by the promissory note is subject to.


Jacques Bureau: Is the bank going to
charge that every evening? When they balance up their books and there is an overdraft, are they going to charge the two cents on every $100?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The full details will be given in the Bill. It is proposed that it should be on the maximum amount of the overdraft for the month so as. to avoid pyramiding.


Jacques Bureau: If a man has an overdraft for twenty-four hours for $15,000 he has to pay on that $15,000?


Henry Lumley Drayton: He has to pay the 2 cent tax.


Archibald Blake McCoig: This seems to be hitting the man who can least afford to pay. It is taxing the man who has to borrow money in his endeavour to conduct an honest business. He must necessarily have overdrafts, and as he borrows money for thirty days, sixty days, or ninety days he has to be continually paying a tax. Suppose a man puts in a number of collateral notes that he has in his own favour, he will have to pay the tax on those notes if he wants to borrow money from the bank. The bank will lend him money at ninety days or four months, and when he renews, the not he has. to pay the tax each time. He has to pay from time to time during the year and he will probably pay three or four times on the money he has borrowed. This seems to be an injustice to the man who is trying to carry on a humble business and who has to go to the bank for assistance. He is being unfairly penalized under this clause.


Jacques Bureau: The small business will suffer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is not
novel legislation at all; it is old. It is novel so far as we are concerned, because we are really only starting to tax directly; but is a very old form of taxation. The stamp tax on cheques, promissory notes, drafts, etc., is not new, and the proposal which we are now making is exactly the same, so far
JUNE 16. i020
as promissory notes and drafts are concerned, as the legislation in force in United States, and I have not heard of any real hardship resulting from it there. They apparently do not mind it, and it is a method by which revenues can be easily raised.


Mr. EULER:: Is the minister certain
that it has not been abolished in the United States? I am informed it has been.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My information is that it is an existing tax in United States.


Jacques Bureau: The injustice of the process is this: If I give a note at thirty or ninety days and pay my two cents on it, I owe the bank for a definite period. But if I overdraw my account to-day $10,000 and pay the tax, an urgent transaction to-morrow may necessitate my borrowing three or four thousand dollars further, and I have to pay another tax; and there is nothing definite in regard to time so far as this borrowing is concerned. A man may overdraw sometimes for twenty-four hours or two days and he knows that he has five or ten thousand dollars on the road coming in with which to meet that overdraft; yet he has to pay his two cents per hundred. This is unfair, and I think there ought to be a definite time limit fixed in regard to overdrafts. This legislation as it is will work an injustice on the man doing a legitimate business. A man cannot get $20,000 or $30,000 at a snap of his fingers, and practically always when he wants to overdraw, he has a positive assurance of being able to meet the overdraft by money which he has coming in on the road. I do not see why a man ought to be penalized if he overdraws his account for two or three days.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Probably some time limit might be put on overdrafts. I do not know whether it should be, but that is something we can discuss conveniently when we have the details of the Bill before us. A Bill must be brought down. This is something that cannot be made effective by resolution, because the question of stamp taxation must be supported by a Bill, and when that Bill is in committee my hon. friend will have an opportunity of criticising its provisions.


Jacques Bureau: I have no desire to be merely critical; I want to see that legislation is fair to every one when it is brought down.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that hon. gentlemen may have the information before them, I would point out that in the United 230-1
States the tax on promissory notes and *each renewal per hundred or fraction is 2 cents. That is the item in their schedule. I would further point out to hon. members who have discussed the question of overdraft that in the United States, where undoubtedly a very large amount of commercial business is carried on very successfully, overdrafts are absolutely illegal.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I would direct the minister's attention again to the unfairness of this tax. If a man borrows $5,000 from a bank for three months, he has to pay a tax and when he renews the note he pays again. He renews it again and he will have to pay the tax. He will have to pay it four times in one year; whereas a business man who goes to a private individual and borrows money for carrying on his business has only to pay the tax once. The minister is penalizing the man who is trying to do business with the bank or the bank which is trying to give the man assistance to carry on his business. The average money lender will not lend money to a man to carry on his business. The man who borrows from the bank has to pay four times as much as the man who is in the fortunate position that he can go to a private individual and get the money and who has only to pay the tax once.


Mr. DUFF:: I would like to support the view taken by my hon. friend from Kent (Mr. McCoig) in regard to this tax. I am m the unfortunate position where I have to borrow large sums from the bank from time to time to enable me to carry on my business. I do not think the Government should penalize the man who is willing to take a chance on going to the bank to borrow money to carry on his business. The Government is not going to get as much out of that tax as it expects because every dollar that a man pays for 3 p.m. stamps is going to reduce the amount that the Government will get from the business profits tax. It is a poor policy to impose this tax on the business man. I would strongly suggest to the minister that he withdraw the tax.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
9.	That a stamp tax of two cents he imposed, levied1 and collected on each share of stock transferred.
['I would like to support the view taken by my hon. friend from Kent (Mr. McCoig) in regard to this tax. I am m the unfortunate position where I have to borrow large sums from the bank from time to time to enable me to carry on my business. I do not think the Government should penalize the man who is willing to take a chance on going to the bank to borrow money to carry on his business. The Government is not going to get as much out of that tax as it expects because every dollar that a man pays for 3 p.m. stamps is going to reduce the amount that the Government will get from the business profits tax. It is a poor policy to impose this tax on the business man. I would strongly suggest to the minister that he withdraw the tax.']
Henry Lumley Drayton: I beg to move to amend the resolution by striking out the word "share" and substituting therefor the words "$100 of face value or fraction thereof" ,so that it will read:

That a stamp tax of two cents be Imposed, levied and collected on each $100 of face value or fraction thereof of stock transferred.


Mr. PEDLOW:: Would the minister explain what his motive is in making this alteration?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We find that in some parts of the country mining stocks are issued for a very small share value and sometimes at such a low rate that a two cent tax really means that the shares would be transferred for nothing.


An hon. MEMBER:: So much the better.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It may be so much the better but some of the most successful mines at one time had their stock selling at a very nominal rate. I do not know that there have been many more frauds in these small things than there have been in large ones. In some of the provinces and in the United States they have found it necessary to adopt the same basis.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Will stocks selling at four and five cents on the market-which is sometimes the case with mining shares have to pay two cents per share when transferred? There is also a provincial charge of two cents for similar transactions and the necessary result of a transfer of that kind would be nil. You might as well present the whole thing to the Government at once.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON Most Of the stocks that my hon. friend (Mr. Pedlow) speaks of are dollar shares and when they are selling for four cents they are selling on the dollar value. We are not taxing the dollar value hut we are taxing in units of each flOO of value of shares. I do not think the tax can be described as unduly onerous?


Samuel William Jacobs: I rather fancy that the transfer that is referred to in the section is the transfer in the transfer books of the company and does not refer to manual transfer or the transfer of stocks from 'hand to hand on the stock exchange.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The principle of imposing taxes on this basis is embodied in the resolution. When the Act is drawn, provision can be made to cover the point raised by the hon. gentleman just now, and will be. The tax is imposed on sales in the way in which they are carried on now through the exchanges.


Samuel William Jacobs: The Bill ought to so state.
iJSir Henry Drayton.]


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Bill ought to so state.


Archibald Blake McCoig: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: 
Archibald Blake McCoig: And so on up?


Henry Lumley Drayton: So on up.


William Stevens Fielding: Many stocks that are transferred pass from hand to hand without being formally transferred at all. They have endorsed upon them the power of transfer and although in many cases they are dealt in on the stock exchange they do not pass through any registration or transfer at all. The word "transfer" as meant by my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) is 'hardly the proper word.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the hon. gentleman is quite right. It is really sales that we mean. That will have to be defined in the Bill.


Mr. DENIS:: I would ask the minister if "face value" has the' same meaning as "par value"?


Henry Lumley Drayton: "Face value"
means the value as expressed on the face of the document. "Par value" means the same thing.


Mr. McMASTER:: Has the minister
thought of the fact that shares of no value at all are being issued now under the Companies Act and has he made provision to take care of the transfers of such shaires?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That will have to be covered in the Bill. Has my hon. friend any suggestion he would like to have considered in that connection?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have no suggestion to make but I simply draw the minister's attention to the fact that there are such shares now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
10.	That the provisions of the said Act relating to stamp duties on bottles and packages

containing a proprietary or patent medicine or perfumery requiring that an adhesive stamp be affixed to such articles by the person selling the same, or by the importer, the manufacturer or producer, be amended to provide that the said provisions shall remain in force as regards the stock of such articles in retail stores remaining unstamped on the 31st July, 1920, and such stock may be sold in accordance with such provisions until the 31st day of December, 1920, but on and after such last mentioned date every such article must be stamped before being exhibited or offered for sale. The stamps shall be affixed to all such articles on or after 1st August, 1920, by the manufacturer or importer thereof, or by such person as the minister may prescribe.
["I have no suggestion to make but I simply draw the minister's attention to the fact that there are such shares now."]
Henry Lumley Drayton: Resolution No. 10 is something which has already been covered in connection with the taxes on proprietary medicines. These taxes are the stamp taxes as formerly collected from the vendors, or druggists, selling patent medicines, perfumery and proprietary articles. Owing to the increase in the excise rate on alcohol, it has been necessary to make a similar increase, as has already been explained, in the tax on these medicines. In view of that fact, it has been determined to abandon the stamp taxes and therefore I ask leave to withdraw resolution No. 10 and, for the same reason, in view of the increased duties upon wines, to withdraw resolution No. 11. I therefore beg to move that resolutions Nos. 10 and 11 be struck out.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that hereafter, except the stock that wias on the shelves on the 31ist July, no stamps will be put on the articles we buy in the drug store or on the wines we buy from the dealer?


Mr. MANION:: As this clause deals with patent medicines, would I be in order in asking a question in regard to the tax on medicines in general? According to some of the regulations the tax did affect ordinary prescriptions. Would-I be in order to ask for information regarding that?


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not think that the hon. member would be in order at present; but so soon as the next resolution is disposed of, the question will be re-opened generally, and then the hon. member will be quite in order.
12. That the provisions of the said Act relating to moving picture films, and all the other provisions of the said. Act inconsistent with these resolutions, be repealed.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Is it intended to remove these duties?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The former legislation calling for the payment of 15 cents
each time that a reel was run in a movie theatre is repealed.
Mr. DENIlS: My idea is that this duty should not be removed, but, on the contrary, that it should be augmented. As a rule people get very little return on the money they spend to see moving pictures. I do not intend to go into any detailed criticism of movie theatres, but I think if any kind of amusement should be taxed it is certainly mbving pictures.


Henry Lumley Drayton: During the
course of the debate on the Budget I think it was pointed out that the tax of 15 cents worked a great hardship on the class of movie theatre which is commonly known as the five or the ten cent show with a very small seating capacity. Those theatres are usually to be found in the smaller towns or in the outlying districts of the large cities. As a rule their proprietors cannot afford to pay for one of the more expensive feature films, and therefore they have to run (more films than the better class of movie theatres, often showing 6 to 8 films each day. Another disadvantage is that these small theatres as a rule cannot do much afternoon business, and for the most part get only the benefit of the evening patronage. As the tax was for each day, these small concerns were subject to an impost of from 6 to 7 per cent, and in some instances more, on their receipts, while the large theatres with their greater seating capacity and using a fewer number of films paid only a fraction of 1 per cent. In other .words, the incidence of the tax was absolutely unreasonable; the man who could .afford to pay was1 not paying; the man who .could not afford to pay was being made to pay. It was obvious that the tax could not justly he continued.	.
Of course, that does not answer the point raised by the hon. member that movie theatres ought to he taxed. I do not suppose there is any issue at-all on that point. .But that is a field that has already been pretty well entered upon by the provinces. When you go into a movie theatre you get with your ticket of admission several other tickets, and the latter are the tickets which the municipal and provincial authorities are interestetd in. That of course is the only fair way of taxing these amusements, because you are then taxing the proprietor on the amount of business he is doing. But, as I say, that field has already been pretty fully entered upon by the provincial and municipal authorities-and, after all, there is a lilnit to the number of tickets that the public ought to be called upon to buy

*when going to a movie show or any other amusement. Therefore it was felt that it would he 'better to leave that form of taxation to the local authorities.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Is it the intention to cease taxing these movie picture shows?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
['Yes.']
Georges Henri Boivin: Before asking the committee for authorization to report the resolutions, I have to diraw the attention of the Minister of Finance to an evident mistake which I discovered this morning in reading over the resolutions as amended. I find that in connection with musical instruments Resolution No. 3, paragraph (to), as printed reads as follows:
A tax of 5 per cent on musical instruments, other than band instruments; pianos not exceeding $4150 each, and organs not exceeding $150- each (other than pianos and1 organs for religious and educational purposes).
I also find the following item:
A tax of ten per cent on pianos exceeding $450 each and organs exceeding $150 each (other than pianos, and organs for religious or educational purposes) mechanical player pianos, graphophones, phonographs, talking machines, music boxes and records used in connection therewith or with any musical instrument ; musical instrument (other than band instruments) not elsewhere specified.
So that the. words "musical instruments other than band instruments" are included in both the 5 and the 10 per cent tax.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was intended that pianos up ito $450 should take the 5 par cent rate, 'and those over that value should take the 10 per cent rate; that organs within the limits set should take 5 per cent, and over that limit should take the 10 per cent rate; and that organs or pianos used for the excepted purposes should not be subject to any tax. I think this is how the mistake came in. Brass band instrument's were considered originally in connection with the 5 per cent tax, -and it was determined to exempt them. There is no tax now proposed upon these instruments, and the words should be deleted entirely. *1 think that wias the sense of the committee.


Mr. RINFRET:: When I first pointed out to the minister last night that orchestral and band instruments should be exempted, his reply was :	.
In recognition of what the hon. member has pointed out, we have cut 'the tax in two. The original provision was ten per cent; now we make it five per cent.

That was supposed to cover both orchestral and band instruments. Later on we made further representations, and the minister consented to remove the 'tax altogether from these instruments. Therefore the amended 'item should read that brass instruments are exempted, and that on other musical instruments a tax of 5 per cent is imposed. 'The first amendment you have read, Mr. Chairman, is correct, and in the second amendment the two last lines should 'be deleted.


Mr. LAVIGUETJR:: If a dealer imports
pianos and pays tax on them and subsequently sells the instruments for educational or religious purposes, will he be reimbursed the amount of the tax?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The manufacturer will not be called upon to pay tax on pianos sold to bona fide educational or religious institutions. In conection with the point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Rinfret), the intention was to place a tax of five per cent on pianos and organs within the limits mentioned and ten per cent upon everything else-gramophones, phonographs and all other such musical instruments.
Mr. EiULER: In most cases the manufacturer sells these musical instruments to dealers and he cannot fell at the time of sale whether or not they are to be used for educational or religious purposes. How does the minister intend to provide that in such cases the taxes shall be refunded?


Henry Lumley Drayton: As a general
rule churches or schools buy direct, with a view to obtaining the article as cheaply as they can. In such cases there will he no trouble. But if they do not buy direct, then the manufacturer will be entitled to refund upon its being shown that the instrument has been sold to a bona fide religious or educational institution.
Mr. LAVIGUE.UR:	Is ithe tax collected
on the full value of the player-piano, or simply on the automatic action?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The whole instrument will bear the ten per cent tax.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Do I understand that
band instruments are exempt and that all other instruments will pay ten per cent, even the string instruments?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is correct. Violins, for instance, will pay the ten per cent tax.


William Stevens Fielding: I am glad that the minister has exempted band instruments, but the word "band" may have a broader meaning than he has in mind. I have heard the expression "string band" used, though my hon. friend has suggested that violins do not come within the scope of band instruments.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What I had in mind were military bands, village bands, town bands and that sort of thing. Perhaps we had better put a proper definition in the Bill. The concession was made in response to representations made by hon. gentlemen and the desire was to cover all instruments required for the purposes of such bands as I have mentioned.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I must ask the
minister to exempt string instruments as well as band instruments. A good many people earn their living with string instruments. I do not see why string instruments should be taxed while band instruments are free.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think I can add anything to what was said last night in that regard. In the one case we are dealing with voluntary organizations; in the other with people who are, as a general rule, doing pretty well.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont) :: I really think the minister did not pay sufficient attention to the suggestion tmalde by my hbn. friend (Mr. Fielding) llast night in regard tto bagpipes. These instruments are not in very general nse throughout the country. They are mostly used in military bands. I venture to say that the tax collected under this head would in the aggregate amount to a mere bagatelle; yet the tax would in individual cases be a heavy one because bagpipes are very expensive. The minister might fairly reconsider this matter.


Mr. PROULX:: I heartily endorse the
view expressed by my hon. friend (Mr. J. W. Kennedy). The bagpipes are very much prized by the Scotch people, and their use is deserving of encouragement. There are a few first class bagpipers in my county, but in 'Glengarry there are many excellent-players. The minister should be generous enough to exempt these instruments from taxation.


Jacques Bureau: What about the mouth organ?
Item, as -amended, agreed to.
iSir HENRY DRAYTON: Before the committee rises, may I point out that resolutions, No. 6 and paragraph (e) of No. 7, as to the time the resolutions will come into effect, are largely formal? I now have what is the usual form of resolution covering -the question, and- this will take the place of the other two resolutions. I move to strike out section 6 and paragraph (e) of section 7, and to add at the end of the present resolutions the following:
Resolved, that the foregoing provisions of these resolutions shall be held to have come into force on the nineteenth day of May, in the present year, one thousand nine hundred and twenty, and to apply and to have applied to all gOodls Imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after the said day; Provided, that in the case of goods which were imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption, and on which duty was paid, on or after the nineteenth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and twenty, in accordance with the rate of duty set forth as payable on such goods In the resolutions respecting the duties of excise introduced in -the House of Commons on the eighteenth day of the said month, or in any amended resolution subsequently introduced in the said House, the duty so paid shall not be affected nor shall the person paying it be entitled any refund or be liable to any further payment of duty, by reason of such rate of duty being altered before the date of the passing of these resolutions.


Jacques Bureau: May I sum tbis up as I understand it? What has been paid under resolutions which have really never become law is going to remain the loss of the man who has bought goods and paid the tax. There was no authority and there never has been any authority to collect this tax. These resolutions were presented to Parliament, but tbis legislation is valid only inasmuch as and when the Bill is assented to. When the Bill is assented to, what is in the Bill is law. My English is limited, but I might say that it is not within the dignity of Parliament to act in this way, namely, to make temporary measures, and then when Parliament in its wisdom has discussed them, to say to the public: Gentlemen, we have brought down measures that we do not think it proper to have on the Statute Book; it was not wise on our part to enact such legislation; but we are going to penalize you on that legislation which was proposed but which is not in force. We are,' in effect, saying to the public:	Those who
bought the goods within the period and paid the tax will pay* the penalty and suffer the loss, and those who did not buy the goods within the period will not have to suffer any loss. I know it is hard to have to reimburse people; but those who have overpaid ought to be reimbursed; there

ought to be a refund. I do not think, as a Parliament, we are giving a proper example, when we say to people:	Although
we have made a mistake in not coming *down to Parliament with proper legislation, we are going to have you pay for that and we are not going to make a refund. As regards the new resolutions, if the amounts that have been paid should have been greater, well and good, put on the difference.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That would be making the new resolutions retroactive.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend will not contend that, as regards these new regulations there are any duties to-day in .force. This legislation will be in force .when it passes the Senate and is assented to by the Governor General. This is retroactive, corresponding with the statement made in the House; but it is not a law; it is only a Bill. Supposing the Bill should go no further, how could it be enforced? I do not think the Senate could throw out the Bill, because it is a matter of the exchequer; but supposing it should be voted down, what would happen? The point of ,the matter is that there is no absolute certainty of this becoming law; it becomes law only when the Governor General has assented to the Bill, and it is practically, to all intents and purposes, retroactive, because it will date back to the 19th May. To-day, the 16th June, we are making this .amendment; but there is no law in fact, .there is nothing to compel a man to pay the tax until we ratify these resolutions. .Therefore, we have collected something which we have no right to collect, but still we are making this valid from the day it .is assented to by the Governor General. In my opinion, this is acquiescing in legislation which in itself is unjust.
v Mr. DENIS:	Unwise.
, Mr. BUREAU: This is not a question of wisdom. It is unjust, but I should like to use a stronger word than that,


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Iniquitous.


Jacques Bureau: No, it is not iniquitous, but it is very close to that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I	confess I
have not had time to * go over the authorities, but I would ask my hon. friend to turn to a few of them, about which he probably knows a great deal more than I do. I am told that what is now done always has been done whenever changes are made,
[.Mr. Bureau.]
,and that in some instances very radical .changes have been made. I speak subject ,to correction because I have not had time ,to turn up Hansard, but I am told that exactly the same course was taken in 1896, .and in the session of 1897, when radical .changes were made in the Budget. I am .told that this is the course invariably followed in England. Again, I speak subject to correction; but I know that it is .the universal custom for Budget proposals to take effect the very moment they are .announced. Moreover, I am sure that my hon. friend will appreciate this, that whatever he may think as regards the question of principle, which apparently all British .Parliaments have followed, it is absolutely impracticable to apply a system of rebates, .particularly when you have many small .taxes paid by people nobody knows who .they are, nobody can tell who they may ,be. Just see the position my hon. friend ,would put the retailer in if this resolution .was not passed. Whatever we may say as ,to the theoretical position, fortified by any .kind of language my hon. friend cares to use in characterizing it, the fact still remains that Budget resolutions have always .taken effect when brought down. It is .absolutely impracticable to give refunds in connection with a series of small taxes like these. The very people who have been objecting to these taxes, that is the merchants, would be placed in an impossible position if refunds were ordered. The situation is taken care of in the same way as it .has been taken care of in the past. We cannot escape from that.


Jacques Bureau: May I draw the minister's attention to the difference between this Budget and previous Budgets? Previous Budgets dealt with customs duties on articles imported into Canada and with excise duties. If the people knew beforehand that new taixee were coming into effect there would be wild speculation. For instance, if it wias known that .a tax of $2 a gallon would be imposed on whisky, the distilleries would be run dry before the tax caim-e into effect. But this Budget is different. This Budget taxes the individual because he uses a -certain article. You might say that that is also true of whisky, hut it is only the man who drinks the whisky who pays the duty, and if th-e resolutions were net brought into effect immediately he would 'take advantage of the situation and Speculate. UndeT this Budget it is the consumer that pays -the tax, and we had no right ait the time he paid ithe tax to make him pay it. For instance, suppose

a man has paid a $2 tax on shoes and the exemption price has since been changed. The Government is going to get the benefit of that 'tax. I say that ils robbing the people; it is taking money which we have absolutely no right to take. I say the principle is wrong, and I toaite to acquiesce in it, and I do not think I shall.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The principle is the same in both cases; it only differs in degree. A man malkes a raid on the whisky 'Seller for the purpose of saving $2 a gallon. I do not see why he should not stock himself up with boots in order to save an extra $2 a pair.


Jacques Bureau: There are eight million people affected by these taxes, but only one or two hundred would speculate in whisky.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon. friend puts it thait way his case is all the weaker, because only one hundred would make a raid on whisky while there aire eight million to mlake a raid on booth.


William Daum Euler: To make the matter perfectly clear, would the minister say just when Ithe changes we iare now adopting, or have adopted, will come into force. Are they coming into force to-day when the resolutions are adopted by the committee, or 'when the Bill is introduced?


Henry Lumley Drayton: They will come into effect on the first reading of the Bill, which I have here ready for utbs first reading.
. Amendment agreed to.


Georges Henri Boivin: Has the minister any other 'amendments to submit?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Nothing further.


Georges Henri Boivin: An undertaking was given by the minister in reply to a request by the hon. member for Three Rivers that after the resolution had been1 considered paragraph. ,by paragraph and item by item, there would be lan opportunity for a general discussion and for hon. members to ask questions ot a general mature.


Jacques Bureau: I waive my privilege.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Manion, Mr. McKenzie, and Mr. Pedlow have already asked me when they would be allowed to submit questions to the minister, .and I advised them it could be done at this stage.


Robert James Manion: I wanted to say a word on behalf of the ordinary medicines that are dispensed in a drug store under prescription, This question was raised last night,
.a.nd the minister said he was willing to do something if some scheme could be worked out. I want to place myself on record *as opposed to this extra tax on alcohol, so far as 'the ordinary prescription medicine is concerned. A few prescriptions may be given that are not absolutely necessary, but generally speaking, when a doctor gives a prescription in any part, of this country it is for the purpose of curing illness. In many oases 'the patients who get that prescription may 'be able to pay any price for iit, but if a man as ill it does not matter whether he has money ot not, he has to be treated, and the medical profession of this country will treat him. If be is treated iat home the question of getting medicine is .an important one to the patient. A bottle of medicine that you could get on a doctor's prescription for something like 60 oents not very long ago now costs very much more 'than, that, and this extra tax on alcohol is going to run up the price on these prescription medicines very highly. I should say that it would run up liquid medicines in which tinctures are contained, and most bottles of medicine contain tinctures, perhaps' 25 or 30 and in some case even 50 per cent. I should like to impress on the minister the necessity of working out some scheme of drawback, or something of that kind, to the makers of these tinctures. It cannot be done for the druggists, of whom it has been stated there are over 3,000 in this country, hut you could give a drawback to the manufacturers of these tinctures who supply the druggists. While that would discriminate to a certain extent against the small manufacturer and the druggist who makes his own tinctures, I do not think there are many druggists making their own tinctures at the present time, and it would give a certain amount of retlief to ithe poor who require these prescriptions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think that is a matter thait could be considered on the resolution before the House, but it could he considered in connection with the customs regulation's, on section 92, if I remember rightly, of the Audit Act. My attention has been brought to ,a very similar matter by the hon. member for Neepawa. We could consider both suggestions at the same time.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I wish to call the attention of the minister to an inconsistency in one or two items of the resolutions. I would refer the minister to an item in paragraph (a) of resolution 1, reading as follows:	,

Kimonas, petticoats and waists in excess of $12 eaoh.
Then in the amended resolutions there is this item:
Silk clothing including artificial silk clothing not elsewhere specified.
Then a ruling given last night by the minister Teads (Hansard, p. 3693):
The tax applies on all silk manufactured garments whether they be overskirts or anything else.
That ruling means that all kinds of gar- [DOT] ments manufactured from silk are taxable.
I do not think there is any such article as petticoats or waist in excess of $12 that is not made of silk. There are silk waists that, cost less than -$12. and I therefore suggest that the section I have referred to be amended to read-
Petticoats and waists of silk and other materials, and kimonas in excess of $12.
I know that a silk waist is an article that is very much in use and it is not a luxury up to that price. If my amendment is adopted1 it will include all waists up to that price whether made of silk, georgette crepe or any other of the materials that are largely used at the present time in the manufacture of such garments. I trust that the minister will consider the representation I am making in this regard.


Mr. PROTJLX:: I am pleased to support the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Pedlow). We have taxed silk dresses and skirts and various other garments and I think we should make a small concession to the ladies and exempt waists.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: If I am not in order in -moving this amendment now, I trust the minister will consider the .point I have raised.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think the situation is quite as the hon. member conceives it. Silk 'clothing "not otherwise specified" is all taxable, font sometimes it is specified. Now kimonas, petticoats and waists are not excepted because they are generally made of silk. Silk garments generally if not specified are 'subject to the tax; if specified they are -made suibject to the excise tax; so that so far as kimonas, petticoats and waists are concerned they become taxable when the cost is over $12. Similarly silk stockings are specially dealt with.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I think it is absolutely necessary to revise the clause as I have suggested, to read: "petticoats and waists of silk and other materials and kimonas." That phraseology is necessary 'because ki-

monas may or may not be made of silk. As it is, there may he 'misunderstanding in construing the section.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I shall he glad to consider the point.


Mr. MO  WAT@: Last night the resolutions were amended so as to make it clear that cake was not confectionery and would not come under that classification. There are a number of things such as soup, which is a manufactured article, that are exempted; yet it is doubtful whether ordinary cake sold by the small baker will be totally exempt from the sales tax. Will the minister explain that point?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Cakes have been removed from the class of confectionery. But, not being an essential food, they should be .subject to the one per cent turnover. For example, the turn-over of the Christie Company will be subject to the 1 per cent when selling to the wholesaler; in the same way cakes will be subject to the turn-over tax.
Mr. .GLASS: I desire to bring to the attention of the minister a matter that was under discussion last night, namely, the question of containers. A firm in London who are manufacturing and shipping goods use a large amount of silicate of soda, which is shipped in large drums invoiced at $15 a piece. These drums come to the country being simply rented for the transportation of this substance which is used in this manufacturing business,' and they are returned to the company who own them. This manufacturing concern have to pay duty on these drums and they are advised by the Customs Department that if they can identify the drums and show that they are refilled and returned to them they will avoid paying duty on them a second time. It is absurd that a large organization having thousands of shipping containers sent all over the country should be expected to have, say, a hundred drums shipped to any point in 'Canada identified and marked and returned to be refilled. It is just as absurd to expect that as it is to expect that a large standard oil company could refill the same barrels and consign them to the same consignee a second and a third time. If the Bill does not provide some means of avoiding the duty the second time on these containers, I would suggest to the minister that he seriously consider the question of giving some relief from the charges that will be imposed on the manufacturer in that respect.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I desire to ask the minister a question and he can answer the two at the same time. My question is in reference to gasoline drums or containers which are used in large quantities in the western provinces to take gasolene and kerosene to the farms for use in Gas Tractors. I am informed by a Board of Trade in my constituency that the oil companies are charging the 1 per cent tax not only on the first supply taken out but also on those drums for which an exchange of drums is made when these drums are returned. It seems to me that this does not constitute a sale, but merely an exchange. I cannot understand why they should he charged this tax a second time when the first lot are returned.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If they invoice them then they would be taxed. But it does not seem to me that they should invoice them. Only one set of containers should be in question, and it would be entirely wrong to pyramid costs on containers. Do they not give a refund on returning the containers?


John Frederick Johnston: When these drums are first taken out the customer is charged $15 apiece on them. That would make a tax of fifteen cents each at one per cent. If he takes ten drums in the first place and returns them at the end of one week, taking out another ten, there is no sale. It is merely an exchange of containers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The fifteen cents ought to be refunded in each case in which it is charged.


Mr. MOWAT:: It is quite evident that there are a number of commodities that are left uncertain .and the merchants of the country are wondering what their rights are. All foods are exempt from the sales tax, but what would be the interpretation as to jellies and jams contained in bottles? Is baker's bread subject to the sales tax?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: So I understand but the object of my raising this question is to know hlow far this clause will be subject to the interpretation of the minister or of the department so that if people now have a doubt or a grievance it may be considered or removed later on. Will the minister make a statement which will be re-assuring to those who are at present in doubt?


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is a point which certainly Ought to be covered and the
Bill ought to have some provision which would enable all doubts to be set at rest and all questions toi be settled in pursuance of the principles laid down. There is no difficulty about canned goods or jellies and jams in bottles. The one is a cheap form of food not subject to the tax but jellies and jams in bottles are what are known as pound goods containing a great quantity of sugar and it is not the intention to exempt them from the tax.


Mr. GLASS:: I would like to emphasize the point I made a moment ago in regard to containers, and in that connection I desire to read a letter which was sent by the Commissioner of Customs on Miay 20, 1920, to the London Shipping Containers, Limited. These people import silicate of soda which they use in manufacturing certain containers. These containers in which they import the silicate of soda are rented to them at $15 each. They come in, they pay the duty of 30 per cent on this $15 and then the containers are .returned to the United States and the London firm are credited with the full price charged. The firm asked for a refund of the duty on these containers and this is the letter of the Commissioner of Customs dated 20th May last:
Ottawa, May. 26th, 1920. Messrs. London Shipping Containers, Limited, London, Ontario.
Attention R. L. Stephenson Esq.,
Manager.
Gentlemen:-
Subject:

Return of metal drums free of duty after duty has once been paid.
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your favour of the 15th instant enclosing a contract which you have with the Philadelphia Quartz Company in connection with the purchase of Silicate of Soda. This Soda is put up in metal drums holding approximately 1,400 lbs., and you are asked to pay a duty of 30 per cent on these drums on each importation. Tou state that if these drums1 are marked for exportation, it is impossible to -have these identical drums returned to you as the exporters, the Philadelphia Quartz Company have about 5,000 of these drums.
Tou are advised in reply that if the identical drums which have been marked on exportation for identification are not returned, there is no authority under the Customs regulations for allowing free entry of the same as provided for in memorandum No. 1398-B, copy of which I enclose.
I have the honour to be Gentlemen,
Tours obedient servant, Acting Commissioner of Customs.
If the customs laws of this country provide so. absurd and unreasonable a condi-

tion to toe applied to an importer, I submit this is the time and the place to change so unjust a provision. Sometimes the rulings of the Customs Department are unjustly made because there is no such ambiguity in the laws that they do not know what they mean. They have to have another Act to interpret the original Act, and even then it is difficult to know what the law means. This substance which is dealt with in this letter is a necessary article in process of manufacture, and if the duty is paid on the drums once and the drums are returned, surely these people ought not to be asked to pay duty again on the same drums. I submit that the request is a reasonable one and that this grievance should be adjusted right here while Parliament is in session.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have so many troubles of my own that I am reluctant to take up any customs matter. We have no resolutions dealing with the customs tariff. We are not considering customs regulations1, or the customs tariff. The question with regard to drum containers is a very vexed one which has been going on for many years. I confess I do not know enough about it to enable me to answer my hon. friend. This is a tax on turn-over and on the net turn-over at that. What I might -suggest is that a refund be given for each and every holder or drum which is sent forward and which is returned. We could not fairly treat drums as forming a part of the produce under the circumstances and they will not be so treated.
Resolutions reported, read a second time and concurred in.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 183, to amend the Special War Revenue Act, 1915.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways and Canals), the House went into committee on Bill No. 135, toi amend the Railway Act, 1919,-^Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 4-
Georges Henri Boivin: An amendment was made in the Railway Committee to the Bill as originally drawn. The following has been added:
Provided that this subsection shall not affect or come into force with respect to any street

railway, electric suburban railway or tramway in the province of British Columbia until the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Will my hon. friend briefly explain the purpose of this Bill?


John Dowsley Reid: The necessity for this Bill arises from the fact that last year in amending the Railway Act a clause was inserted, at the request of the railway brotherhoods, bringing under the jurisdiction of the Dominion Railway Commission any provincial railway leased or operated by a railway company holding a Dominion charter. The question arose over the Quebec .Central railway, which, although operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, was subject to the jurisdiction of the Quebec Railway Commission. But the clause as drafted goes further than we intended and covers any provincial electric railway or tramway leased to a railway company -,ub-ject to the Dominion Railway Commission. It was brought to our attention by the (British Columbia Electric Railway *Company. They applied to the Railway iCommission of their province for appro\al *of a higher rate schedule, and were referred to the Dominion Railway Commission, the provincial commission pointing out that, under the amendment in question, the British Columbia Electric Railway Company was no longer under its jurisdiction.


THE ROYAL ASSENT.
[Stage Direction]
Sitting suspended for Royal assent to Bills.
A message was delivered by Colonel Ernest J. Chambers, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable Senate.
Accordingly the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And having returned.
The Speaker informed the House that His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the Royal assemt to the following Bills:
An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, (Pilotage).
An Act to amend the Oleomargarine Act, 1919.
An Act to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907.
An Act respecting Food and Drugs.
An Act for the relief of William George Mackness.

An Aot for the relief of Charles Elias Var-don.
An Aot for the relief of John Hamilton Harvey.
An Aot for the relief of James Goddard.
An Act for the relief of Frederick Stephen Hartmann.
An Aot for the relief of William George McBride.
An Act for the relief of George Stinson.
An Aot for the relief of John James Davis.
An Act for the relief of Arthur Jones.
An Act for the relief of Eva Mary Moss.
An	Aot	for	the	relief	of	Nellie	Adeline
Wallace.
An Act for the relief of Marion Olive Booth.
An Act for the relief of William Edward Vin-all.
An Aot for the relief of James Lewis Price.
. An Act for the relief of Frederick Tristram Clarke.
An	Aot	for	the	relief	of	Jessie Elizabeth
Hudgin.
An Act for the relief of Caroline Ewing Gudewill.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Charles	Lindsay
Keys.
An Aot for the relief of Irene Martin Chapman.
An Act to incorporate United Canada Fire Insurance Company.
An Aot respecting Honey.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Francis	Charles
Dean.
An Act for the relief of John James Garrison.
An Act for the relief of Dora Lumsden Mc-Laurin.
An Act for the relief of Edith Sarah Bell.
An Act for the relief of Albert Graham Elson.
An Act respecting the Army and Navy Veterans in Canada.
An Act to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
An Act to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act.
An Act respecting The Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
An Act respecting The Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate Aberdeen Fire Insurance Company.
An Aet to amend the Employment Offices Co-ordination Act.
An Act for the relief of Jennie Wright.
An Act for the relief of Alfred Charles Edwin Westley.
An Act for the relief of George Orville Scott.
An Act for the relief of Harry Davis.
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Conway Murray.
An Act for the relief of Lockhart Pierce Sutton.
An Act for the relief of Frank Fulsom.
An Act for the relief of James Proudfoot.
An Act for the relief of James Lyon Lincoln Cobbin.
An Act for the relief of Albert Ernest Bulley.
An Act for the relief of Beatrice Booth Gen-dron.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (French Version).
An Act to incorporate The Western Canadian Union Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for public service of the financial years ending respectively the 31st March, 1920, and the 31st March, 1921.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed in committee on Bill No. 135, .to amend the Railway Act, 1919, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Mr. McKENZIE,: What is the clause of the Railway Act which is amended by this Bill?
John Dowsley Reid: Section 6, subsection
(c) as follows:
Every railway or portion thereof, whether constructed under the authority of the Parliament of Canada or not, now or hereafter owned, controlled, leased, or operated by a company wholly or partly within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, or by a company operating a railway wholly or partly within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, whether such ownership, control, or first mentioned operation is acquired or exercised by purchase, lease, agreement or other means whatsoever, and whether acquired or exercised under authority of the Parliament of Canada, or of the legislature of any province, or otherwise howsoever; and every railway or portion thereof, now or hereafter so owned, controlled, leased or operated shall be deemed and is hereby declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.
What has happened in British Columbia has happened in several of the other provinces. When the Railway Act amendment of last session was put through there was no intention of bringing all our street railways under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners. This Bill is simply to provide that these electric railways and tramways shall remain under provincial jurisdiction as they were prior to the revision of the Railway Act last year. The Bill was thoroughly threshed out before the Railway Committee. The only question was with regard to this amendment; the committee were unanimous so far as the principle of the Bill was concerned.
Mr. McKENZIE,:	When the Railway
Act was amended last year it was not discovered that the law as then passed was so far-reaching as it turned out to be?


John Dowsley Reid: That is it.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Is there any judicial
decision to the effect that the' Bill does mean more than the House intended it to mean?


John Dowsley Reid: The British Columbia authorities, as I understand it, contended that the amending legislation of last year

took away certain of their rights so far as their electric railway system was concerned. The British Columbia Electric Railway applied to the Railway Commission to have the rates fixed, and action was taken by the Railway Commission for the Dominion. The decision was therefore arrived at that we should take this step to provide that these electric railways and tramways shall remain under the provincial jurisdiction.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
STATEMENT BY HON. Mr. GUTHRIE.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion for Committee of Supply:
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Militia and Defence):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair I would like to make a few preliminary observations on the Estimates submitted by the Department of Militia and Defence. I do so particularly because I think there exists not only in the country, but in the press and within the House of Commons some misapprehension as to the scope of the proposals which I have the honour now to bring before the House.
It has been a matter of some criticism during the present session that apparently the amount of the militia Estimates submitted this year is largely in excess of the amount submitted for the last fiscal year. On more than one occasion comparisons have been made between the figure now submitted-in round numbers, $12,500,000 -and the amount submitted last year-in round numbers, $8,369,000. The statement has been made that it is proposed to expend during the coming year about $4,000,000 more for Militia and Defence than was found necessary last year and an argument has been based upon the comparison that the Government is entering upon a career of recklessness in regard to militia expenditure. But I submit that no fair or proper comparison can be made between the amount submitted this year and the amount submitted last year, for very obvious reasons. Any one who takes time to consider the situation as we have it to-day and the situation as we had it last year must at once, I think, realize the force of what I say. Last year was a war year in this country and was so treated by this Parliament. This year, technically speaking, is perhaps a war year too, but not to the same

extent as was last year, and so far as possible during the present year we are trying to get back to normal affairs and the expenditure now submitted would be the expenditure of a normal year, not of a war year. In our militia expenditure we treated last year as a war year, and for that reason the expenditure appears at only about $8,391,000, but that does not mean that the sum of $8,391,000 was the total militia expenditure. The truth is that all sums of money expended last year which could be charged to War Appropriation were so charged, and the House knows that last year we appropriated $300,000,000 as a War Appropriation. This year the War Appropriation for expenditures both in this country and in Great Britain, where we are winding up war matters, is about $38,000,000. One has only to cast one's eye over the militia Estimates for the present year to see the difference between the proposed expenditure of this year and the expenditure of last year. In that expenditure there are eight items which show increases during the present year over last year, and these eight particular items to which I will call the attention of the House, account for almost $4,000,000 of the increase.
The first item which shows an increase in this years proposal is that of annual drill. Last year annual drill appeared only at the sum of $350,000; as a matter of fact, while there was no annual drill last year except by the permanent forces of Canada, the ordinary militia units were not called on to drill. This year, at the time when these Estimates were prepared and printed, it was expected that the usual annual drill would take place throughout Canada; that is, the drill which we were accustomed to have in this country before the war in normal times. If the committee will look at the item for the year 1913-14, as shown at page 30 of the Estimates, they will see that in the year before the war the item for annual drill was $1,830,000. This year it was estimated that a sum of $1,500,000 would suffice for the item of annual drill, on the .assumption that the ordinary militia units would be sufficiently organized to perform annual drill during the present summer. I may, however, tell the committee at this juncture that our hopes in that respect ,have been somewhat disappointed. The organization or re-organization of the militia units in this country has not proceeded sufficiently far to enable us to go ahead with the ordinary annual drill. Annual drill this year will be confined to what are known as city

corps who can train at their local headquarters; but the organization of the rural units which perform annual drill in the month of June throughout Canada has not proceeded far enough, and their annual drill will have to be abandoned for the present year, although the permanent force will drill as usual. The item, however, as it appears in the Estimates was for the old time programme of annual drill as it was held in this country prior to the war. There is a difference in that item between this year and last year of $1,150,000. That cannot be regarded as an extravagance; if we are to maintain in Canada a militia force, it must be a drilled force, a competent force, and the item for annual drill should appear in the Estimates, although, as I stated, this year the annual drill will not take place because organization has not proceeded far enough to permit of that.


Mr. CRERAR:: What will the reduction amount to?


Hugh Guthrie: As regards annual drill of rural troops, the reduction will be approximately $400,000. The only authority we have given so far is for annual drill to be performed by city corps. The estimate of the number of men who make up city battalions which will drill at local headquarters is about 30,000 in round figures. In addition to that we hope to train such of our batteries of artillery as have local headquarters where they can be trained. There are seven or eight or nine thousand of these men who may be trained, and in addition to that we are going to make an effort to train our new machine gun units established for the first time in this country, no doubt as an outcome of the Great War. These will be all the troops that will be trained in addition to the training which is going on at the present time of the permanent force. If the city units and batteries of artillery and machine gun units are trained at local headquarters, as we propose, there will be a saving on this item alone of approximately $400,000. There will, I think, be a greater saving than that, but I am giving that as the estimated amount.
Another item that will bear comparison between this year and last is that of cadet services. The amount for cadet services this year is placed at $390,000, while before the war the amount was $392,500. Last year the amount dropped down to $100,000, bo that there is an apparent increase this year over last year of $290,000. Last year was a war year; we were trying to keep militia expenditure in this country as low as possible; last year we had no cadet camps. This year we purpose holding the ordinary cadet
camps which did so much for the military service of this country in years gone by. Last year there was no military class, no physical training class for the teachers in the cadet corps. This year we propose to re-establish those as heretofore. Last year there was no grant for uniforms for cadet corps. The grant is not large, something about one dollar per man, and this year we purpose giving these grants again. That acounts for the difference of $290,000 shown in the Estimates, but there is this to be said of this item. I am informed by those who are most competent in this country to advise one upon such a point that the most valuable asset we have from a militia point of view is our cadet training, and that for the future, perhaps for all time to come, the most valuable class of people to whom we can look in this country to form our militia is the school children of to-day. We have not established anything in the nature of compulsory military training; we give them a plain course of physical instruction, a .course which improves the lad both in body and in mind, if he never subsequently enters the militia. But, as a matter of fact, that preliminary training has had a great deal to do with filling up our militia units throughout the country. This is a most valuable expenditure if we are to maintain a militia force in Canada.
The next item is that of Dominion arsenals, which this year shows an expenditure of $790,000 at Lindsay and Quebec. Last year no expenditure whatever was shown for this item. Last year we had a very heavy expenditure, but* it was charged to War Appropriation, so that the expenditure this year appears as an increase, although, as a matter of fact, it is not an increase at all.
The next item that shows an increase between last year and this year is that of engineer services, and there is an apparent increase in that item of $230,000. That is really not an increase. Last year the work was not fully performed; our military establishments, barracks, buildings and the like were not kept up as they should have been, but what work was done while these buildings were being occupied by the Canadian Expeditionary troops was charged to War Appropriation. This year we do not purpose charging it to Demobilization Appropriation, but to the appropriation which now appears in the Estimates under this heading of engineer services.
The next item is for the permanent force, which shows an increase of $428,000 over last year. That item I will deal with in the

course of a few minutes. The next is Transport and Freight, which shows an increase over last year of $275,000. Last year the expenditure under that head was $25,000, and I do not think it was spent. There was no transport and there was no freight, because there was no training and there were no camps. All the military transport which took place in Canada last year was charged to War Appropriation; it had strictly to do with the war, and not with the established militia of this country. Now that we are getting hack to normal times this item is charged to the Militia vote. We do not expect to use the whole of it because a large part of it would ordinarily be used in connection with the annual camps, and as we are not going to drill rural battalions, there will be a considerable saving in that item. The item is about the same as in normal years before the war, allowing for the increases in freight and passenger rates which have taken place in the interval,
The next item is Warlike Stores. There is an apparent increase there of $400,060 over last year. Last year there was no separate expenditure under this head. All expenditure on warlike stores last year was charged to War Appropriation.
In the eight items I have enumerated there is in the aggregate an apparent increase of $3,700,000, but I think the House will agree that the increases are only apparent, not real increases. They are charged this year to the vote of the Militia Department. While last year for the most part they were charged to the War Appropriation. What I maintain is that a comparison between the proposals of this year and the proposals of last year is <nrt a fair comparison at all. A fair comparison would be to compare what we propose to spend this year, as a peace year, with what we spent in the year before the war, also a peace year. I am quite prepared to compare our expenditure, of this year with the expenditure in the year 1913-14, or in any of the four or five years before that, and justify the figures I now submit as reasonable and proper under the circumstances. Let us go back a few years before the war to the days of the Liberal administration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Your administration?


Hugh Guthrie: The administration of which I was a humble supporter. I submit that the figures I now present compare favourably with the expenditure in those years. I go back to the year 1910-11, when the late Sir Frederick Borden presided over the Militia Department, and take the Es-

timates of that year, at page 47. The Main Estimates totalled-I shall give only round figures - $6,898,000, and the supplementar-ies, of which there were three, $236,000. .The total appropriation for that year was .$7,135,000. Coming to the year 1912, page 48 of the Estimates of that year, the Main Estimates of that year totalled $7,524,000. There were again three Supplementary Estimates of $56,870,	$463,000 and $155,000.
.The total for 1912 was $8,200,000. That was the Estimate for 1912, prepared in the year 1911. Now I come to the year 1913-14, .the figures for which are shown in the first .column of the Estimates now before us.
, Mr. LEMIEUX:	Would my hon. friend
supplement his statement by giving the figures of the national debt in those years?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot offhand, but
later I can give nay hon. friend that information if he desires it.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: We had money then;
,we have none now.


Hugh Guthrie: In 1913-14, the year immediately before the war, the Estimates totalled $10,917,000. But that year there were other military expenditures. One charged to Public Works amounted to $221,000, and other special expenditures for military purposes, as set out in the accounts, amounted to $740,000. The total for that year was $11,79,000. During the years 1911 and 1912 (our military establishment 'in panada was not very different from what it is to-day. The permanent force was very similar to the permanent force of today. In the year 1911-12 the permanent force of Canada consisted of 2,916 men of all ranks, and in 1913-14, the year before .the war, of 2,906 men of all ranks. The permanent force which exists in Canada at this date consists of exactly 3,555 men. |That is the total permanent force of the .'military establishment of this country. That is. we have in round numbers 555 more men of all ranks than we had the year before the war, or more than we had when Bir Frederick Borden brought in his Estimates in the year 1910-11.
Why should there be an increase shown .in the vote if the establishment is about the same? I think the reason is apparent to every member of the House. The cost ,of maintenance to-day is just about double ,what it was in those years. I have made inquiries and I find that the cost of food has more than doubled. I saw in the newspaper to-day a statement by the Department of Labour giving statistics. It showed that the cost of the weekly budget for a

family of five people increased from $7.45 in May 1914 to $16.65, or an increase of 125 per cent. The increase has been just as great in the cost of soldiers' food as in .the food of other people. Clothing has increased over 100 per cent. Ammunition and military equipment has increased on the the average by 100 per cent. Freight transport has increased about 75 per cent. Going ,up and down the whole line of figures, from .the best information I can gather from very competent men in the department to assist me in such matters, I find that the average increase has been between 80 and 90 per cent. Pay has been increased very much since Sir Frederick Borden's time, and very much since the year 1913-14. Taking the pay of a private only, in the year 1910-11 a private in the permanent force received 50 cents a day, after three years, 60 cents, and after six years, 75 cents. In 1912 this was changed a little. It .was made 50 cents on joining, 60 cents after three years, and 70 cents instead of 75 cents, after six years, but a small annual .allowance called an efficiency allowance was added, bringing the maximum pay of a private up to 90 cents a day. So it was ,at the outbreak of the war. We then established a new rate of pay for our soldiers. The pay -of a private in the expeditionary force was raised to $1.10 a day. Last year with the authority of Parliament that pay .was again increased. The new pay regulations provide that a private in the permanent force shall receive $1.70 a day, which is $51 a month, as against the 50 cents a day which he received	in	1910-11, and as against
50 cents and an efficiency allowance which he received the year previous to the war. ,The pay of all ranks has likewise been Increased, but not so much as the private's .pay. The last increase in the pay*of privates and non-commissioned officers constituted an average increase of 26 per cent, ,and the pay of officers has been increased about 10 per cent.
Any one can see the great difference between the 50 cent pay which pertained in our permanent force eight or ten years ago and the $1.70 which pertains to-day or the' $1.10 which was paid throughout the war. These matters make up the whole of this increase,-100 per cent in pay and 100 per cent in equipment, and all food and clothing double what it was formerly. Now, while the permanent force has only been increased by 555 men of all ranks during these intervening years, are the figures which we show to-day in any respect un-231


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
reasonable? I submit that they are not. There is a popular impression in Canada that in some way this Government has increased the military establishment of the country.
Mr. LANCTOT:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: Let me deal with that
supposition for a moment. My hon. friend from Laprairie says "hear, hear." I know he has not the correct information on the subject and I will give it to him now, because the fact is that the militia and the permanent forces have not been materially increased. Twelve years ago, indeed longer than that, in 1903 or 1904, Parliament authorized a permanent force in this country to the extent of 5,000 men. I voted for that Bill and I remember it well. We thought that 5,000 men constituted a good, fair standing army, as we called it; but it was never recruited up to that strength. Under Sir Frederick Borden the total force, all ranks, never exceeded 3,050 men; and under my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Sir Sam Hughes) I do not think the figures ever reached 3,050. I think they fluctuated between 3,000 and that number. Last year this House of Commons, I think with very little discussion and with very general concurrence, agreed that the permanent force of 'Canada should be increased to 10,000. There was little discussion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is not right.
Mr. CAiSGRAIN:	We voted against it.


Hugh Guthrie: There was not very much objection.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh yes; we voted against it.


Hugh Guthrie: The debate on the subject was not very protracted; it did not extend over any great length of time, and the objection was neither very pronounced nor very prolonged.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: You had the majority to carry it.
Mr. (SPEAKER: Order.


Hugh Guthrie: At all events, Parliament in its wisdom enacted that there should be an authorized force in this country up to 10,000. No one, I think, had any idea that the force should be recruited up to that number, and the Minister of Militia at the time so stated to the House. But the authority to raise such a force, if it became necessary, was certainly given by Parliament as a precautionary measure. I know that the Government has made public statements that the force would not be recruited beyond 5,000 or half of the total,


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
authorized and up to the present moment I can tell my hon. friend from Laprairde that the figures I give him are correct, namely, 3,555 men of all ranks. There is still room to recruit 1,445 more men before we reach the 5,000 limit. I do not know that they will be recruited. In the province of Quebec, particularly in regard to the 22nd Regiment, we are still endeavouring to recruit more men; and I must say that I am a little disappointed to see all over Canada the slowness with which recruiting for the permanent force is being done.
Mr. -CASGRAiIN:	You should not be.
Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend says I
should not be disappointed, but I am. I believe in the maintenance in- this country of a reasonably good militia force. We have always had one since Confederation, and I trust that we shall always continue to maintain one. When I confess that I am a little disappointed at the slowness with which recruits are coming, both in the permanent force and the militia force of Canada, I of course state only my own feelings on the subject. I thought that with the increased rate of pay our permanent units would be filled up, but that is not the case. I find that we still have something to -do in the way of providing for the comfort and convenience of the men, and the greatest drawback at this moment is our lack of barrack accommodation and proper living conditions. During the winter months we suffered from a good many desertions and the reason always given was that, living conditions not being such as civilians would tolerate, there was no good ground for asking soldiers to put up with them. That is one of our difficulties at this moment, and I may refer to it further as I proceed. Now, if we go to the limit contemplated, viz., 5,000, we would require 1,445 more men. Before it became necessary for me to charge my mind with the details of this department, I was a civilian and as such I admit that I misapprehended the real situation, as I know the majority of hon. members misapprehend it. They have not the information, and in the absence of the details they cannot form a proper estimate of the work of the Department of Militia and Defence. ,For the information of the' House I will state what the whole permanent force establishment is. We have the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery stationed at Kingston, a very efficient force, which is used for the training of artillery militia units. That is the main purpose of the permanent force. It is almost, though not 
quite the exclusive purpose. It is our only permanent field artillery. We have only one more regular artillery branch in the service and that is the garrison artillery. These are stationed at Halifax, Quebec and on the Pacific coast. That is all the artillery we maintain in Canada in our permanent force. In regard to infantry, we have the Royal Canadian Regiment, the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and a new regiment just formed for the purpose of perpetuating in this country the heroic deeds of the men wh8 formed the overseas regiment known as the 22nd, now .a new regiment of the permanent force, established or in process of establishment in the city of Quebec. The three regiments constitute our infantry establishment. In cavalry we have two units, the Royal Canadian Dragoons, and the Lord Strathcona Horse. In addition to the foregoing we hiave the engineering corps, the army service corps, the medical corps, the dental corps, a corps of clerks engaged in the pay office-the army staff clerks I think they are called-and two other corps which we should have but which we have not yet organized, namely, the signalling corps, and the army chaplain corps. All these auxiliary corps are necessary but they entail only a few members. That is our whole establishment. It costs money to maintain it, of course, but its purpose is to look after the whole administration of the militia force in Canada. Now, we have the headquarters at Ottawa land it comes in for a good deal of criticism. It is spoken of as the arm of the service that devotes itself to fuss and feathers. But I can say this much for the headquarters staff-and I did not know it until I was closely connected with that staff-that I have never seen in the Civil Service of Canada or in any business in the country a body of men so loyal to their duty, sot intelligent, so able, and -so hardworking as those who are engaged at the headquarters staff in the city of Ottawa. I have this advantage over all of my predecessors in the office of Minister of Militi.a in that I am surrounded by the ablest and most experienced staff of men who were ever gathered together in Canada. I have on the staff, as the House is aware, as Inspector General, General Sir Arthur Currie, undoubtedly the greatest soldier this country has ever produced and probably one of the greatest soldiers that the world has seen.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that the opinion of your predecessor?


Hugh Guthrie: 
making deductions for the changes I mentioned at the opening of my remarks, $12,500,000 represents considerably more than will be actually required for militia expenditure for the fiscal year ending 31s't of March next.
I have not been very long in the Militia Department. I went in there as a civilian. I do not know that it is altogether necessary that the minister who presides over the department should have had ia military training. In Canada I think usually the minister has been a military man to a greater or less degree, but in Great Britain the Secretary of State for war in the majority of oases has been a civilian. However, I am free to admit that when I took charge of the department my knowledge was very hazy and very general, and I do not think I had any real appreciation of the policy or objects of the department; indeed, the knowledge I had then was the common knowledge to be found among civilians throughout the length and breadth of Canada. I have had an opportunity to become familiar with the working and objects of the department. And I have not gone along with my eyes shut. I have noticed some things which I think might be improved, and some of my ideas regarding changes are now under consideration. I recognize also some difficult situations that will have to be faced in the near future, but I think the most pressing need at the present moment is the question of barrack accommodation.
The permanent force is one to be proud of, but we have practically no 'accommodation for it. In Halifax what military barracks we had were badly damaged by the explosion. We have some buildings there yet, I am told, hut while they -may prove suitable and adequate for summer occupation, they are not adapted for housing troops in winter. In Quebec we have barrack accommodation which will not require very much expenditure. In St. John we have only rented accommodation. In Fredericton we have accommodation for a battery. In Montreal we have no accommodation. We have rented property known as the Peel Street Barracks, but we have to give up possession in a couple of months. In Ottawa we have, no barracks; although I think we should have. In Toronto we are perhaps in a worse position than anywhere else. We have the Old Fort, About 120 years old and falling into decay and we have still stationed there the Royal Canadian Dragoons. The property is too small, it is badly situated, it is in bad repair; but, worse than that, it has been disposed of to
the Toronto National Exhibition and our right of occupation ceases on the 1st of July next. In Winnipeg we are fairly well off for accommodation. In Regina we have none, in Calgary we have none, and in Victoria the accommodation is of the slightest kind. That is a very serious problem, because our experience has been that while you may increase the pay of the rank and file in your permanent militia force, unless you give them proper housing conditions and proper surroundings you are not going to retain them.
Well, how is the problem to be met? I find that we have a very large amount of real estate belonging to the Government of Canada but held in right of the Department of Militia and Defence. We have many very valuable properties in Halifax. ;We have in the Rockcliffe Rifle Ranges one of the most valuable properties in this neighbourhood, comprising an area of 500 or 600 acres of the choicest land to be found anywhere, and we do not hold it for any useful purpose. This year the rifle matches will be held on it for the last time. The new 'Connaught Ranges will be used next year for this purpose.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why did you change
them?	<	,	,


Hugh Guthrie: I did not change them, but I believe the new Connaught Ranges are much superior to the old Rockcliffe Ranges and can be operated with a great deal less danger. Then we would have on our hands 500 or 600 acres of the most valuable property in this neighbourhood. We go to Toronto, and on the highway between Toronto and Hamilton, bounded on one side by the provincial highway and on the other by Lake -Ontario, we own 458 acres in one of the finest suburban residential districts. At Niagara we have 400 acres of valuable fruit land lying idle. At other points we have other properties of considerable value. The valuation of this unused property of the Militia Department throughout Canada runs into $3,500,000 to $4,000,000.
The question is: How are we to dispose of it? You may say that we can put it up at auction. We can, but we would not get its value. I doubt if the Government is in a position to go into the real estate business, for in order to get the value of our land it will be necessary to subdivide our large holdings in Toronto and Ottawa, to hold them for a time, to do a certain amomjt of advertising and to sell to advantage as offers come in. The question which is bothering me most at the present time is

how best to dispose of those properties. But those properties are there and I think can be disposed of to yield sufficient money to build permanent barracks for our troops.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: I did not have an opportunity of hearing the early remarks of the minister. What properties could be disposed of?


Hugh Guthrie: The two main properties are the Rockcliffe Rifle Ranges and the Toronto Rifle Ranges.


Samuel Hughes: In Toronto or at
Lome Park?


Hugh Guthrie: At Long Branch.


Samuel Hughes: Then you would
have to get other rifle ranges for Toronto.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes; but that property is spoken of as being worth $1,500 to $2,000 an acre, and it is too valuable to hold as rifle ranges; you could get cheaper property. Besides, it is nine miles from the Toronto (City Hall, and the complaint is that it is too far out for a rifle range.
That is the best solution I can suggest of the barrack question, and it is engaging the attention of the Department of Militia and Defence at the present time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have you included
among the assets of the department the Dorval site?


Hugh Guthrie: I am mentioning only
those which appeal to me as being the most valuable. There is also the St. Andrew's College property at Toronto, for which the department paid $500,000 two years ago, and which, I believe, cannot be used as barracks. It is in Rosedale, North Toronto, in the heart of a residential district. Very strong protests have been made by the corporation of the city of Toronto and by the residents of the district where the property is situated, against the erection of barracks on that property. In fact, it was stated to the members of Council who heard a deputation which came to interview the Government on the subject that the erection of barracks there would be ruinous to residential property now assessed at about $25,000,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why?


Hugh Guthrie: On account of a military /establishment being in a fine residential .district. There are differences of opinion on that subject, but that was the opinion of those who interviewed the Government. There are other objections to the St. Andrew's College site from a military point *of view, but as the property has probably increased in value since it was purchased
fMr. Guthrie.]
two years ago no loss will be incurred in connection with our selling it as soon as we are able to arrange for its sale. In the meantime, it is being occupied on lease terminable at the end of two years by St. Andrew's College.
There is one other matter to which I should like to direct attention and in connection with which, I think, something might be done. We have in the Department of Militia as fine a corps of engineers as can be found anywhere in the world. We have a great many engineering services in the Government of Canada apart altogether from the Militia Department. I believe that our corps of engineers in the Militia Department could perform all the engineering services of the Government of Canada. All the Government engineering in the United States is performed by the War Office- river, harbour, bridge and construction works, buildings, surveys and the like. Five or six departments of this Government do surveying work; thaj. could all be consolidated into the Militia Department. So with other engineering services. Our graduates from the military college are recognized as among the most capable engineers in the country; the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have no hesitation in taking these men on their staff. I believe that a system could be worked out whereby all the engineering work of the Government could be performed by engineers of the Militia Department and that the result would be a tremendous saving.
One other suggestion-and it is a suggestion of the Inspector General, Sir Arthur Currie. First and foremost among the functions and duties of the Department of Militia is the defence of Canada. The Inspector General is very strong in the view that all branches of that defence should be centred in a single department; that we should have in that department not only our permanent forces and our militia, but also our mounted police, our civil police, our Air Board. The latter is a distinct department to-day, although I have the honour for the time being of presiding over the board as chairman. As time goes on and the work becomes reduced, the work now done by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment might also be brought under the Department of Militia. The Inspector General considers that this matter should have immediate consideration. He thinks that the carrying out of some such plan would result in better co-operation, more efficient co-ordination of work and a tremendous

saving in the carrying on of these various services. These are matters which are now under consideration. As time goes on some of them can certainly be worked out to a conclusion for tlhe general benefit of the country.
As the items of the Estimates are taken up I think I can give pretty full information on the points which will arise. In the meantime, let me say that if you give the question of the proposed militia expenditure the same fair consideration that you would give to it if it were a private matter, a domestic matter, a company matter, a business matter and siay that if six, seven, eight or nine years iago this service would have carried on at $5,000,000, to-day the same service would cost $10,000,000, you will be looking at the matter in a fair way. If hon. members apply that test or that criticism to it I am satisfied that they will agree that the present proposals of the Government are moderate in the extreme.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister contemplate bringing in iany Supplementary Estimates this year in connection with the Department of Militia?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, there may be a Supplementary Estimate in regard to barracks. It is not yet settled. If we can arrange for the disposition of the land I think it would be a matter of first consequence to make some start in connection with barracks. There will also be a Supplementary Estimate as recommended by a sub-committee of the House in regard to battlefield memorials. There may also be one or two minor payments, involving sums under $1,000, in connection with accidents, gratuities and the like. That is all I can recall at the present moment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Could the minister say what will be the amount of the Supplementary Estimate for barracks?


Hugh Guthrie: I would think that a million and a half to two millions would be a fair grant. I do not know that we can go on with the work this year but I would like to see a start made if possible. We have the land there to turn into money; it is a question of how to do it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I shall reserve, until the Estimates of the department are under consideration, any criticism of individual appropriations. I should not like the statement which the minister has just made to pass, however, without
giving expression to the 'surprise which must be felit not only in (this House but throughout the country once it is learned that the minister has spent his time not in *seeking to advocate retrenchment in the Department of Militia and Defence, but in endeavouring to excuse increased expenditures at this particular time.
The minister has told us that while the Estimates which have been presented to Parliament for this year show an increase of $4,000,000, the Estimates are, in reality, not made up correctly-that is What his statement amounts to. The Estimates as printed on page 30 indicate that in 1919-20 the several items there set forth totalled $8,369,552, and that this year for the same items, an amount of $12,498,506 is asked. The minister has seen that an increase of $4,000,000 in the expenditures of the Militia Department is one not calculated to meet with approval-throughout the country. Indeed, he has already had evidence of that in the comments on the Militia Estimates that have appeared in the press. So he tells us that the Estimates are not correct; that as a matter of fact moneys appropriated for demobilization purposes were used to meet some of the expenditures that come under the head of Militia and Defence. If that be true it would seem to indicate that the Government had used for one purpose an appropriation which had been made for an entirely different purpose.	.
Mr. GUTHRIEi: If I may he permitted, I made no such statement; I intended to give no such impression. I said that last year certain items were war items and were charged to War Appropriations; this year they are being charged ito Militia and Defence. That is the statement I made, and I think the House understood it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, they are exactly the same class of expenditure. If they .were charged to War Appropriation last year, why are they not charged to War Appropriation this year?


Hugh Guthrie: We want to terminate
the war if we can, and the war expenditure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
says ithat he wishes to terminate the war and war expenditure. The minister is re-questiing an appropriation of $38,463,400 for demobilization purposes; I assume that that is the appropriation which would correspond to the War Appropriation of last year. That being so, the minister has in this year's

Estimates another large sum -which must be taken into account along wifth these Estimates which relate more particularly to the Department of Militia and Defence. If the Government follow just the course which they have followed within the past year, we have every reason for assuming that some part of this $38,000,000 now asked for demobilization purposes will be used, as was the War Appropriation of last year, for militia and defence purposes. If the Estimates are wrong, if they have been presented so as to be misleading, the Government must take the blame. The Estimates stand in the form in which they have been presented by the Government to Parliament, and as presented they clearly show an increase of more than $4,000,000 over the amounts that were asked for last year. As I have just said, the minister has made it apparent that last year some of the expenditures came out of the War Appropriation; this year he is asking for a similar appropriation for demobilization purposes. I repeat that unless we can get from the Government a guarantee that no part of that appropriation will be used for militia and defence purposes, we cannot assume that when we come before Parliament next year, there will not again be this difference.
But the point to which I wish particularly to direct attention is the minister's endeavour to draw a comparison between the expenditure on militia and defence at the present time and amounts that were voted prior to the war. The minister seems to think that at the present time we ought to vote an amount at least equal to amounts that were being voted prior to the war. .That is where I take direct issue with him. Before the war it was pretty generally anticipated; it was oertainly said in official quarters that a menace was threatening the world, and that it was necessary to meet that menace by increasing our military and .naval forces. That argument was used as the ground for increasing military expenditures, and it was largely in anticipation of the danger of a great international disturbance that this country voted for military and naval purposes the sums of money which were appropriated at that time. But conditions are wholly different to-day. There is no world menace. Where does the minister expect invasion from? The minister says that this expenditure is needed for the defence of Canada-defence against whom? There is no answer; there is no answer to be made. There is not an hon. gentleman on the other side who will

say that a single nation at the present time has any hostile intention or attitude of hostility towards this country, or that there is the slightest danger of Canada .being invaded from any quarter. Yet the minister asks us to-day to vote a sum that .will bear 'comparison with expenditures .voted on the eve of the terrible situation which occurred in 1914. I might further point out that prior to 1914, that, to be correct, during the period of the Liberal Administration, because the minister referred to that period, we had surpluses, not deceits in our public accounts, and we had a small national debt. To-day we have a colossal public debt; we have obligations that are wholly different, and we are not in the same position to-begin to meet them. It is one thing to lay out sums of money on different appropriations when there are plenty of funds in the treasury, but it is quite another matter when the nation is trying to cope with an enormous deficit and to meet obligations such as the country heretofore has never been faced with, and .when conditions are such that there is the strongest reason why we should economise in every possible particular, and especially in those particulars in which no satisfactory reason can be shown for large expenditures.
But the most important consideration of all is this. The minister has spoken about the need for training camps, permanent barracks and the like. Prior to 1914, it was necessary to have men trained as soldiers; we had no trained men, or very few, .but what is the position to-day? We have in this country to-day an army of trained men, the most efficient soldiers that will .be found in any part of the world, so that the situation is wholly different from what it was prior to the wax. The need fox training to-day is not what is was prior to the war. We have the experience, knowledge, and attainments of thousands of men as our security and safeguard if there be need for such at the present time. That is a reason why, on this particular score, much could be done in the way of reducing expenditures.
The committee, however, should consider, not only what the minister is asking us to appropriate for militia and defence, but what is being spent for military purposes in different directions. First of all, there is the demobilization appropriation of $38,463,400. Under these circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to ask the minister to suspend as largely as possible further outlays for militia and

defence until we have completed voting money for purposes of demobilization. For that period of time until at least we get through with this expenditure of $38,000,000 for demobilization purposes, we are surely justified in objecting to increased expenditures for the purposes of the ordinary work of the Department of Militia and Defence. But we have been vastly increasing expenditures in other directions to meet, in part, the purpose which the minister says will be served by the Department of Militia and Defence. He has mentioned the danger of invasion as one ground for this expenditure, and the other ground is maintenance of peace at home at all times. The other evening we were told by the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) that the mounted police were being increased in order to maintain law and order at home. The Hon. the President olf the Privy Council argued that he believed it was better to decrease the militia and to increase the mounted police, and on that score he sought to have appropriated an item of $4,674,066 for the mounted police. The Government have further placed in the Estimates an appropriation of $500,000 for buildings for the mounted police.-These are items that must be considered in connection with the Militia and Defence Estimates. It da perfectly proper also, in considering defence matters, that we should consider expenditure in connection with naval affairs. This year the Government led us to believe that there was to be retrenchment in that line and that all that would be expended would be $300,000; but in the last couple of days, the Minister of Naval Affairs (Mr. Ballantyne) has told us that when the Supplementary Estimates are brought down, they will contain a further Estimate of $2,200,000 for the purpose of naval defence; and this afternoon we get from the Minister of Militia for the first time, the announcement that he contemplates also in the Supplementary Estimates asking for an additional $2,000,000 for the purpose of building barracks for the permanent force in this country.
Mr. C'ASGRiATN: Noi end to this.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If we go on in that wtay, we shall have a military budget of very large proportions. Let me repeat some of the figures:
Demobilization appropriation, $38,463,400.
Main Estimates for militia, $12,498,506.
Mounted Police, $4,674,066.
Building for Mounted Police, $500,000.
Naval Service, $300,000.
Supplementary voite for Naval Service,

In addition to that there is the $2,000,000 which the minister is asking for barracks for the permanent force, making a total of over $60,000,000 which we are appropriating for purposes of defence-


Ernest Lapointe: We are paying for tht, League of Nations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -when at this, of all times there is the greatest need for economy and retrenchment, and the least need to fear invasion from any particular source.
These are not the only expenditures that the country is making for military purposes. There are also the obligations arising out of the war. We have an Estimate- and there will doubtless be additional Estimates in this connection also-of $25,825,676 for pensions in connection with the European war and the active militia, $34,000,000 for Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and $50,017,000 for Soldiers' Land Settlement. That is a total of $109,842,676, directly connected with military expenditures that the country has to meet at this time, in addition - to this proposal of some $60,000,000 more for the purposes I have already outlined. I think the country Will be indignant when it discovers that the ministry has forgotten altogether the necessity for retrenchment in this particular line, and I think we on this side of the House will be justified when the Government asks us for the appropriations suggested, in requesting that they be cut down very substantially. I might as well say immediately that we will ask that from some of the items , the Government cut off a very considerable amount of what they are proposing to expend. I mention this now in order that the ministry may consider whether, in view of this summary which I have given of the total expenditure on these particular scores, it is not possible of their own accord to volunteer suggestions as to directions in which retrenchment can be made.
A reference has been made to General Sir Arthur Currie. I have the highest admiration for General Currie, and I am only too happy to have an opportunity of saying, so far as my own individual opinion is concerned, that I agree with every word the minister has said about him. I should like to draw the minister's attention to a remark which I see General Currie made, speaking in this city on Thursday of last

week before the General Assembly. Sir Arthur is reported in the Ottawa Journal of that day, on page 7, as follows:
" We did not intend that militarism should he forced upon this country," General Currie continued, "and just to show you how much of a militarist I am. I may tell you that I told the Canadian Government I would agree to reduce the establishment of the permanent force hy 1,000 men if they would give me instead 1,000 physical instructors who could go through, the country, and impress upon the boys the importance of physical training."
There is a statement- by the expert military adviser to the Government that the permanent force can be cut down by at least 1,000. There is an alternative suggested, which I think is worthy of consideration, but the point I wish to bring out at the moment is that if the permanent force can be reduced by 1,000, there is no need for the Government at this time to ask Parliament for an additional appropriation of over $2,000,000 for barracks for a permanent force.
I think the statement of the minister is amazing when he tells us that the Department of Militia and Defence has property to the value of $3,500,000 or $4,000,000 and does not know what to do with it. Imagine a statement of that kind being made in this Parliament at this time-a statement that we have a department of the Government that has property to the value of $3,500,000 or $4,000,000 that is rendering no service-I think the minister used words to that effect -lands for which there is no particular need at the present time. There is a statement which by itself is deserving of -consideration. I would suggest to the minister that instead of selling this land with a view to raising money to help pay the cost of erecting barracks, he apply the proceeds to run his department, or apply it where it is most needed at the present time to reduce debt instead of incurring further expenditure.
What is it the Government suggests? First that we should hold these lands that we do not know what to do with until we can turn them into a use that will help to perpetuate militarism in some form. Second, that we should sell them to help build barracks for a permanent service so large that we do not already know what to do with, it. This simply shows that as you increase one thing you have to increase all the other elements that go to maintain it. Instead of holding on to these lands for this purpose -seeking to increase the permanent force and building additional barracks to house it- I would suggest that the minister consider retrenchment on all these items and

allow the barracks question to stand over for a time. Let him sell the lands and apply the proceeds to helping the country meet its outstanding obligations at the present time in the manner in which they need so much to be met, and let him give us hope that at least we are getting back to a peace basis, and that the ministry is freeing itself from the war habit of mind into which it has got, and from which it seems so difficult if not impossible for the ministry to free itself.
Hon. Sir,SAM HUGHES (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I regret I was not present when the minister introduced this subject this afternoon. I was not aware that it was coming up or I should have had the honour of being present and listening to his remarks. I do not know what words the minister uttered regarding General Sir Arthur Currie, and I care not. What I will say is -this: There has ibeen no officer, military or otherwise who has received more commendation by way of propaganda than General Sir Arthur Currie, except maybe the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) and the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). I have no objection to anything that may be said about General Sir Arthur Currie, except that the Minister of Militia and Defence or anybody connected with the Militia Department of this country must know that scores of men-I will not say one or two or three, or a dozen -are regarded throughout the length and breadth of this country in military circles as infinitely superior to General Sir Arthur Currie as a general or as -a gentleman.
The question of barracks has been mentioned here -to-day. When I had the honour of being Minister of Militia I started on a policy of erecting drill halls throughout the length and -breadth of this land. I managed to smuggle a large number of them into the Estimates from year to year, and I am satisfied that the people of this country appreciate the value -of these drill halls today. They belong not to- the militaristic, but to the democratic branch of the service. I view with alarm the establishment of police barracks, and of military barracks to any abnormal extent, throughout the length and breadth of this land. I have always claimed that the permanent corps- I am not speaking of the administrative staff-was to a very large extent an excrescence on the country. A country like Canada does not need a large permanent force. In the war, I regret to say, the permanent force did not distinguish themselves at all as compared with the nonpermanent soldiers. It is -a standing joke

in the service that nearly all the soft positions were filled toy permanent corps men. while the boys who went to face the music and bear the brunt of the fighting were the lads belonging to the non-permanent branch of the service. I want to point out in connection with this great dread of insurrection or Bolshevism and all that sort of thing which seems to trouble a great many people in the -Government to-day, that I have Ibeen travelling up and down this country possibly as much as any man in the Government and I have yet to find the first	indication of -any Bolshevik	spiritworthy of notice. I might point out that in 1915, when I had upwards of 375,000 soldiers under arms in -Canada, scattered all over the country, fifteen here, twenty-five there, seventy-five there and a hundred at some	other place,	a -great	manypeople at that time were in dread as to how I was going to control these men. Well	they	are free-born Canadiancitizens, -and being young gentlemen	they	conduct	themselves	with
gentlemanly propriety throughout the land; and after having had the honour of wearing the King's uniform -and defending their country, enduring all sorts of hardships and privations, I see no danger of their misconducting themselves now. I challenge any one to show where a second offence of any serious -character has been brought in the police courts -against any appreciable member of these 375,000 men, and I see no reason why there should now be any need for four or five hundred extra policemen in the country, maintained at an enormous expense. I do not think that we should cultivate a spirit of militarism by building up a great permanent force, but rather that there should be, on the part of the people themselves, free from any military control, the true soldierly spirit of wanting to protect the country in time of need. The military spirit must be in the people as individuals, and if they have a true sense of responsibility they will always be ready to play their part in the defence of their country. Those men who have returned from the war are splendid Canadians, -and they served rtheir country admirably. But there are a number of men who remained at home, such as General Fiset, Etnmett Clarke, and a score of others I could name, who are now taunted every day of their lives by the propaganda from certain quarters-
-Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: The practice has
abated to a certain extent, but there was
a great deal of propaganda disseminated at one time, and it is hard on gentlemen such as these ito -have to put up with the statement that they have been slackers and to be cried out of their jobs because they did not go overseas, when their services in Canada were just as necessary and as dangerous as -Sir Arthur Currie's-because he -never went within range of the shells- and just as es-sential to the conduct of affairs during the period of the war. General Fiset, Emmett Clarke and others did splendid work at home, and they should noit be stigmatized by any propaganda from this machine.
Mr. CA-SGRAIN; Break the machine.
-Sir SAM IHU-GHBS: I do not mind men spreading propaganda on their own account, but I do object to their casting any reflections on men who did good service at home. I cannot geit my good friend Mr. Maclean of the World to do anything unless I go after him.	,


Mr. MACLEAN (York) :: I might say-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


William Findlay Maclean: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman has appealed to me several times-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Samuel Hughes: The minister speaks of doing away with the rifle ranges at Long Branch and I must confess that that is a rather startling proposition. I do not see why that pioperty should be sold. These ranges were purchased -by arrangement with the city of Toronto and they are absolutely necessary. I think I know (the country around Toronto fairly well, and I I do not know where any better ranges could be obtained, and certainly I see no necessity whatever for selling a property of this description. Now, the time will come when (the men who fought in the late war will be regarded as "has beens," and many of -them are not as vigorous and efficient now as they were a few years ago; and as years roll on, 30 or 40 years hence these ranges will be indispensible. The same argument does not apply to the ranges at Rockliffe, a property that could be sold with advantage to -the people, and some other properties; but I do not think that a solitary property in Canada that does any necessary work for the .upbuilding of the militia should be dispensed with without due consideration; -Camp Borden and Niagara Camp are not necessary in the true

sense of the word, but the ranges in Toronto are absolutely essential.
In conclusion, I desire the minister to consider two thoughts; first, whether we should build up a permanent militaristic spirit embodied in a permanent force and permanent barracks, over-riding the people by officialdom; or, on the other hand, whether we should try to inculcate in the people themselves the true soldier spirit of service and sacrifice, every farmers' son in the nation considering himself a part of the militia, ready to take his fair part in the defence of ,the country in time of need -in other words, a non-permanent force on the one hand, or a permanent militia with an over-riding officialdom on the other.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Eecess.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


Roch Lanctôt: crossed the ocean, I admit, but who have never smelled powder in the trenches of Flanders or tihe north of France. I would like to have a fifteen-minute interview with them. It is not neeeseary 'to tell you that I would dismiss a great many of them, and that to the satisfaction of the people I represent. I thank you for the attention you have given me.
Mr. JOHN H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough) : Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two at this juncture, and it will only be a word or two. If we had the military arrangements, such as were entailed by the war, to go all over again, who is the man who would he chosen to command the Canadian military corps? General Currie, beyond all doubt. When we read the French, American and British papers commenting upon Canadian troops and their * conduct, military and otherwise, during the campaign, we find that, in extending their congratulations to the Canadians, they always couple with the name of the corps, the commander of the corps and they give such unstinted praise to General Currie that unless I should happen to be a man altogether vain in my own conceit, I would say that General Currie must he a very great man. Fortunately, not being a person such as I have described, I am led by this weight of authority to believe General Currie to be a very great man. Having some regard for the preponderance of evidence, for the incontestable weight of evidence, I also have formed the opinion that he is a very great man, and I think most Canadians hold the same opinion. There was one country whose name I have not yet cited, one people whom I have not yet quoted, who said that he was a great man. They were the Germans-and they ought to know. So, taking it all in all, we could hardly let these Estimates go by, without even the most insignificant of us expressing our gratitude, as we have done, not only to the Canadian troops but to the great commander of them, General Sir Arthur Currie.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough):: Mr. Speaker, I do not profess to be a military expert, but I regard it as my duty to protest against this very large expenditure. Taken in connection with the expenditure on the mounted police, I regard this proposed military expenditure as being entirely unjustifiable at the present time. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) expressed my views in that respect and I do not need to go over the ground again. My

principal reason for rising at the present moment is to refer briefly to the item of $121,000,000 which appeared in the Auditor General's report of the military expenditure last year and which I referred to a few days ago. My hon. friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), in my absence, after I had made my speech in the Budget debate, indulged in some very severe language about myself in regard to that question. I wish to be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to explain to the House the reason why I made the statement I did make on that occasion and why I made the inquiry as to what has become of the money which was voted by this House for military expenditure overseas.
The President of the Privy Council asked me to make a public apology 'for having brought this matter before the House. I have not made any apology and I do not purpose making any. Any statement I made in regard to this matter was made on the records before Parliament. There was no statement made on my own initiative and everything I said can be proven up to the hilt notwithstanding anything that the President of the Privy Council has said.
What was the situation at that time? We on this side of the House had some reason to doubt the efficiency of the bookkeeping and to question the manner in which the expenditure was made overseas. The reason why we did doubt it was that it was placed before the House and the country by the late Auditor General in very plain language in 1917 and it has never been explained since that date. It is a matter of record in this Parliament what the late Auditor General found when he went overseas in 1917 and no explanation has yet been forthcoming to the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but if I mistake not the subject matter of the question to which he is referring is now before a committee of the House for consideration, and, that being so, the hon. member would not be in order in commenting upon it before the report of the committee is before the House.


William Stevens Fielding: 
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think it is essential for an hon. member to refer to what has taken place before a committee; otherwise the very purpose of the rule would be defeated, because an hon. member could escape the rule by speaking to a matter which is before a committee without specifically mentioning it. But the fact is that the subject matter of this item is now before a committee of this House, and it ought not to be discussed here until a report of that committee has been presented.


Samuel Hughes: I understood the hon. gentleman to speak of what the Auditor General found when he went across the water. Nothing of the kind. It was at home that the Auditor General found it.


William Stevens Fielding: Then under the ruling the whole matter of the Auditor General's report might be excluded from discussion here because it is before the Committee on Public Accounts.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: By no means. The rule has not been and could not be so interpreted. But if this item is as I think at the moment, before the Public Accounts Committee for consideration, it ought not to be a subject of discussion here until the committee has reported. That is in conformity with the well-established practice of this House.


William Stevens Fielding: How does the Speaker know that this matter is before the Public Accounts Committee?


Mr. MORPHY:: Mr. Speaker, I do not intervene to prevent your answering my hon. friend's question, but, as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I say that that item was before the committee this morning, and the Auditor General was examined at some length by the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysbo-rough.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not wish to convey the impression that it is not before a committee of the House. But the Government is now asking for an additional amount for military expenditure. I am pointing out that the expenditure which was voted the year before last has not yet Deen properly accounted for, .and I purpose reading from the statement of the late Auditor General made before a committee of this House to show that that is the state of affairs overseas. Under the rules of this House I submit I ought to be allowed to proceed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the hon. member, by a ruling of the Chair, would be precluded from discussing a matter of public interest, there might be some merit in his contention that he ought to be allowed to proceed; but inasmuch as there will be ample opportunities to discuss the question w-hen the report of the committee is before the House, and also on motion to go into Committee of Supply and in committee itself, it seems to me that under the rules of the House it is not competent for the hon. gentlemen to discuss in detail an item which is at the present time before a committee of the House for adjudication.


John Howard Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I submit to your ruling. I shall take the first available opportunity to discuss this matter with my hon. friend -the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), for I think he and not I i-s the man who ought to make an apology.


Mr. W. A. GRIESBACH (West Edmonton) :: Mr Speaker, after the very excellent presentation of the case by the hon. Minister of Militia in support of the motion before the House, it would scarcely be necessary for any member on this side to speak in support of the motion. I rise to reply to some observations offered by the hon. and gallant member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) in which he referred, in terms certainly not acceptable to me, to General Sir Arthur Currie. I feel, as one who -served under General Sir Arthur Currie for a long time and who knows him intimately, that I might be expected by the House and by the country to rise in my place and say something in reply to the observations of the hon. member (Sir Sam Hughes).
Hon. members know what weight may properly be attached to observations of this nature reflecting on General Sir Arthur Currie coming from the hon. and gallant member for Vi-cto-ri-a (Six Sam Hughes). Incidentally I may say that no mam in this House enjoys in larger measure the affection and esteem of hon. members on both sides than does the hon. an-d gallant member for Victoria. Nevertheless, for the reasons I have given I feel that -something ought to be said in reply.
General Sir Arthur Currie was the Commander off Canada's victorious army in the Great War; subsequently he was called to the command of Canada's army at home; and finally he has been called to the great office of principal of McGill University. Any



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
*Militia and Defence-allowances, active militia, $120,(WO.
['Who is going to get that $600,000 Friends of the Government-if there are any left? Are we going to give it to newspaper men to write articles in the United States to tell us what a great man the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) is. Are we going to vote $600,000 more than is required by the Government for drill halls, so that we can have it drilled into our minds that the President of the Privy Council is a great man? During the war, follies were committed. This Government would come before the House and say: "We need so much money and it will be used to save the British Empire." The money was always voted. But now the war is over, and these gentlemen will get exactly w7hat they need and not a cent more. I do not think the minister takes a reasonable stand before this committee when he admits that he only needs $950,000 and yet asks Parliament to vote\'him $1,500,000. The amendment moved by the leader of the\n\nOpposition should have been adopted and the main motion thrown out.\nItem agreed to on division.\nProgress reported.\nOn the motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 12:18 a.m. Thursday.\nThursday, June 17, 1920.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the explanation of the increase of $20,000?


Hugh Guthrie: These are allowances to corps of active militia; they are authorized under articles 445 and 464 of the pay and allowance regulations. They include allowances for command pay and drill instruction; allowance for care of arms; postage allowance, and what are known as contingent allowances. I understand that this is practically the same amount as was voted annually before the war. Last year, as the committee are aware, many of our militia Estimates were in a state of disorganization, due to the recruiting which had gone on during the war. Full allowances were not paid. Certain allowances were made to commanding officers who had managed to keep together the nucleus of a corps. Many of these commanding officers had devoted a great deal of time in connection with their corps to the work of recruiting for the overseas forces and to them limited allowances were made, on a scale, I think, of fifty per cent of the regular allowance. We have provided, of course, for the establishment of a larger number of militia units than heretofore, as I explained this afternoon. The infantry regiments are slightly increased, to the extent of four or five in number,-perhaps six. The number of batteries of artillery is increased by about twenty-five. In addition there will he a machine gun corps. The commanders of these coips will he entitled to the usual pay

and allowances authorized under the pay and allowance regulations. It is to meet these additional charges that the extra $20,000 is asked lor.


Samuel Hughes: The member for West Edmonton (Mr. Griesbaeh) has just taken the opportunity of reading me a little lecture with regard to som# remarks which fell from my lips this afternoon. I do not stand here to retract in the slightest degree what I said to-day, although it was spoken on the impulse of the moment; on the contrary I am prepared, if necessary, to go much further. I pointed out to-day that a propaganda had been carried on to boom Sir Arthur Currie. I am prepared to prove it before a committee of this House. I have documents in my possession which will prove all I have said to-day and much more -that he had been the willing victim, if not the instigator, of one of the most successful propaganda that has been carried on in any land. For instance, on the night of the 29th of September, 1918, newspaper accounts were all drafted and prepared of the capture of Cambrai, the capture of Eamillies and of places in and around the city of Cambrai. Great descriptions were prepared to indicate that Sir Arthur Currie had done this and Sir Arthur Currie had done that-I myself saw a copy of the document. But, Sir, unfortunately instead of the victory which was referred to our poor boys fell that night to the extent of upwards of twenty thousand men and the propaganda had to be held back. But the object of my remarks to-day was not to expose General Sir Arthur Currie, because I created General Sir Arthur Currie. General Sir Arthur Currie was a fairly successful Colonel of a battalion in Victoria at the outbreak of war. One would have naturally supposed that being in command of a battalion he would be one of the first to volunteer. But up to the present hour General Sir Arthur Currie has never volunteered to serve in this war. I found that there was dissatisfaction with the soldier; that everybody seemed to look to Colonel Leekie, to command the brigade from the West.
When I found that out, a friend suggested to me that if I could induce Col. A. W. Currie to come and fight, he might possibly allay the opposition, and as he was not as well known as Col. Leekie, he might be acceptable to some of the battalion. I accordingly wired Col. Currie, as he was at that time, brought him from Victoria to Valcartier, placed'him in command of a brigade, and let me say to my hon.. friend 232
(Mr. Griesbach), who should know the facts of the case, that I retained Col. Currie in command of the brigade under conditions when no other officer in the British Empire would have retained a man under similar conditions. I sent him to the front and I maintained him there. I shall not refer to the fact that for part of two years he allowed another officer, Col. Jack Currie, to remain under the odium of being a coward, of running away and hiding in a British dugout and being kicked out by a British general. I spoke to General Currie about this matter. Indeed, I felt so keenly about the matter that when I met Col. Jack Currie, who was so stigmatized, I declined to shake hands with him, feeling that any officer who was in command as he was should not desert his colours but should stand to his guns. About a year later, in conversation with a British officer, I learned that this man who had gone into the dug-out was a big officer and that he was Col. A. W. Currie. I got the facts sifted out little by little when I was over in the Old Country until the truth was forced upon me that it was not Col. Jack Currie of Toronto who had done the retiring, but Col. Arthur Currie, who commanded the brigade, the Fifth, Tenth, and a couple of other battalions, in the battle of St. Julien.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Did not General Sir
Arthur Currie demand that that statement be taken back, and was it not taken back?


Samuel Hughes: No. General Currie admitted over his own signature that he went into General Snow's dugout. He did not go to Ypres, but he went to Pottinje, which is only 300 yards from the village of Ypres, where General Snow's headquarters were. His statement is that he did not go back to Ypres, but the fact is that he went within 300 yards of it. He admits in his letter that he went there nominally to ask for reinforcements. When we got the facts of the case, we found that General Snow ordered him to leave the dugout and used very strong language, which I shall not mention here.


Mr. CANNON:: If such ibe the case, how could General Currie be promoted afterwards as he was?


Samuel Hughes: General Currie was promoted before these facts were known. Had I remained in office six weeks longer, not only General Currie, but several other officers would have been asked to hand in their resignations. I was confusing the two Curries. When General Currie made the definite statement that he had not been



in Ypres, I accepted his *word; but I did not kno-w that he was quibbling on the statement, and that he had gone to the village or farm of Pottinje, which is only 300 yards from the village of Ypres. He admits having gone there and he was ordered out by General Snow. The facts may just as well be known. I was not the man to bring up General Currie's name; but there is an apparent determination on the part of certain gentlemen to force General Currie's name to the front, and by doing so they are backing General Currie in place of better generals than he is or ever knew how to be. Why do they not come out and sing the praises of General Turner and General Lipsett and other generals who have served their country nobly and well and who have no propaganda? But the eternal propaganda seems to be General Currie and General Currie alone. If they want the whole story, we will give them a great deal more than has been isaid. I have not thrown out anything about General Currie; it has been thrown out by this eternal tooting and propaganda in favour of General Currie to the exclusion of Turner, Lipsett and a number of other generals who are infinitely his superior in tactics, strategy and in personal courage. The question of tactics and strategy in this war largely consists in "go on, go on, go on." The plans were laid in the office of General Foch, with the exception of the last Cam-brai fight; I understand that the plans for that battle were the tactics and strategy of General Currie. I have no hesitation in saying that many Canadians would be above the sod to-day if he had not carried out his tactics and strategy in relation to Cam-brai. As is well known and admitted on every hand, the plans for other actions were largely made in -General Fo-ch's office and were so carried out.
I want to correct my hon. friend (Mr. Griesbaoh) in the statement that there is any personal animus on my part towards General Currie. I created him; I backed him as no person ever before backed another in the history of warfare; I saw him through again and again; but when I found out over this Jack Currie matter that General Currie was the man that was there and that he was quibbling over the statement that he was not at Ypres, I had no great respect for General Currie's honour as a man in relation to his duty towards his fellowman as exemplified in his conduct towards Col. Jack Currie. As regards my carrying on of a propaganda against General Currie, wha{ I have dope is- to [Sir Sam Hughes.)
stand by the rights of other officers. I consider General Turner-and I think I am as competent a judge as is in the Dominion or in the Empire; if I do say that myself, I have proved it-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: A smirk and a smile are easy, but I want to tell the -Minister of -Militia and other hon. members who smile, that my record is there and shows that if my plans had been carried out from beginning to end, there would have been a different showing in this war. I will stand by the gentlemen whom I know to be true and gallant soldiers, who deserve something done for them by the Government of this country in place of having to read every day of their lives about propaganda in favour oif General Currie, who is unfit-and I say so advisedly-to be compared with them as a general and who is not their equal in other regards.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before thi-s debate continues any further, it is the duty of -the Chairman to remind hon. members that it is not relevant to- the question before the Chair at the present time. I understand this is a reply made to certain remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Griesbach) when the House was sitting as a House and not in committee. I am quite sure that if the hon. member -for Edmonton West desired to say -a word, he would be allowed to do so by the un-an-i-mous consent of the committee, but I do not think it would be proper to continue this debate and overlook entirely the item which is now before the committee for its consideration. The question of the conduct of the late war might be relevant upon the demobilization vote-I understand there is still this year a vote for demobilization purposes-but it is certainly not relevant to the item under consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the minister kindly to repeat the figures as to the increases in infantry regiments and batteries of artillery?


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that before the war there were 101 -infantry regiments; there are now -some 106 in process of organization, and when organization is completed, there may be possibly 109 or 110. There are 14 machine gun units which are new and about 25 batteries of artillery which
are new.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Estimate for last year voted by this Parliament for the active militia was $100,000. This year the minister is asking Parliament to increase the Estimate for this purpose to $120,000, a sum equial to that which was spent foir the active militia in the year immediately preceding the wiair. The minister has just explained that this additional increase of $20,000 is to permit the Militia Department to increase the number of infantry regiments by about nine, to establish 25 new batteries of artillery and to establish 14 machine gun units.
I think that when we have before us, as you have just mentioned, Mr. Chairman, a vote for demobilization purposes of $38,000,000, we might well ask the ministry to refrain from seeking to get from Parliament increased amounts to the extent of $20,000, for these additional infantry regiments, batteries of artillery, and machine gun units. What does the minister want these new infantry regiments for? What does he want these batteries of artillery for? What does he want these machine gun units for? Does he contemplate invasion from abroad, or does he expect revolution at home? He has given us no evidence ithis afternoon of any danger from abroad, and so far as the internal condition of the country is concerned, I would tell him that he will do infinitely more to create unrest in Canada if he uses the money of the people of this country for increasing infantry regiments, batteries of artillery, and machine gun units at this time, than if he took the opposite step and began to reduce them. When we take these proposed increases into account, along |witlh the intention which wae expressed by the *miimieter this alftetmoon of asking Parliament in the course of the next few days for an additional $2,000,000 to establish barracks at different points throughout this country for a permanent force, and take into account also the proposal of the President of the Privy Council JMr. Rowell) for an additional $500,000 for the mounted police, it is perfectly evident that the Government has made up its mind to substitute for a militia in this country <a standing army, and' that we lane (facing ia/t the moment (the niuoleius of a, standing army in Canada. That is a condition which every country after a war has been more or less threatened with. I may say to the minister that any movement of that kind on the part of the Government cannot be too strenuously resisted, and it will ,be resisted as strenu-232*
ously as it possibly can be by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. We do not wish to impair in any way the efficiency of ithe militia service of this country. For a little time the militia, I imagine, will welcome something of a rest in many particulars. Economy can be exercised in military matters as well as in other branches of the public service. When we are reifusing to expend public money for post offices, custom houses, wharves, and on many other different matters for the public use, I think we can well afford to cut down on this standing army proposition. I do not wish to make ,a suggestion to the committee which will in any way embarrass legitimate expenditure for the active militia, but I think that if the Government were to ask Parliament to give the same amount tins year as was voted by Parliament last year they would be getting ample for itheir purpose. To go beyond that, I believe, is to run into an extravagance that is wholly unjustifiable. For that rpason I would move that this item be reduced by the amount of $20,000, which is the amount of increase in the item over what last year was appropriated by Paarli ament for this purpose.


Hugh Guthrie: Notwithstanding the information that I sought to give to my hon. friend this afternoon he still seeks to make comparisons between this year's proposal and last year's proposal, and because this item exceeds by $20,000 the item of last year, he says it should be reduced by that amount. Now last year (was not a fair year to base judgment upon. Last year was a thoroughly irregular year in expenditure. Last year, as a matter fact, only $54,000 was expended on this item. Our militia units were disorganized owing to the war, but those commanders who kept some remnant of their units together and who had become valuable as recruiting agents for the expeditionary force were allowed half pay for this service. This item is based on the year before the war, which was a normal militia year. It is strange to hear my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition speaking of this great "standing army" that this Government is trying to establish. There is nothing further from the thought of the Government. There is no standing army mentioned or concerned in the item now before the committee. It is purely and simply to make provision for that small allowance which from Confederation onwards has been given to the commander of every militia unit for looking after his corps. A dollar a

head per man is allowed for the care of arms, $10 or $15 for postage and about $10 for contingent expenses, telegrams, express and the like. That has been paid to commanders of units since Confederation. This item of $120,000 is based exactly on the pre-war allowance. We have not increased it by one dollar. We have in contemplation, however, organizing the new units I have mentioned. They are militia units; they are for the good of the people of Canada. They'are not a standing army; they are a matter of physical training just as much as of military training. I think my hon. friend, if he is going to reduce any of these items in the Estimates as laid before Parliament, might surely have taken some item on which there was some reasonable ground to contend that the Government was entering upon a scheme of extravagance. This is the small regimental pay the commander of a unit is entitled to receive for all purposes. We are not increasing it at all. It is just the same as it was the year before the war, and I would ask the committee to adopt the item as it stands.


Samuel Hughes: I think the leader
of the Opposition is in error when he refers to this item as helping to build up a standing army. This vote is not intended for anybody but the administrative officers of the non-permanent active militia. If my hon. friend would make himself familiar with the expenses of the officers commanding these units, he would consider the item very small indeed. So far as d am concerned, I was talking with some officers today, not dreaming these Estimates were coming up, and I said I thought this item should be materially increased in justice to the officers, who have to go to a great deal of expense organizing these various units throughout the country. I am satisfied my hon. friend has made a mistake in thinking this item refers to the permanent corps.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I fully appreciate what my hon. friend has said. I realize that this expenditure is for the active militia.


Samuel Hughes: They are all active militia, but one is permanent, and the other non-permanent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My mention
of the standing army had reference to other amounts which we would be asked to vote, but which we have to take into account (when esitimaSting whait dhould the voted oin each item. The point I want the committee

to realize is that we have had an intimation as to the large expenditure that is contemplated for barracks and other purposes, and we have just had an intimation from the minister that he wishes to establish these infantry regiments, batteries of artillery, and machine gun units. Now these come directly under this increase, and II feel that in view of the large expenditures that have been intimated and that indicate that we are heading in the direction of establishing a permanent force, we can well afford to be a little economical on this item as well as on the others. Reducing it by $20,000 will still leave $100,000, which is just $20,000 less than the amount expended in the year immediately preceding the war. When aim throiugh wiltlh diemotoiliaaitSan, there 'will Ibe time enough to [DOT] get (back to the previous Bibaltie, tout let PS complete one (thing alt a lame.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: Reducing this particular
item would lead us into an injustice. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in his apparent eagerness to move for reductions in the amount of expenditure to support the militia has chosen a very bad item for his purpose and be now sees he has inmdie a misltake anld desires ibo make an explanation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: His explanation is not
very satisfactory. It should have been patent to him, even from the discussion that has taken place, that he might very well rely upon the statements of those who know something about the militia before making this attack. The minister says that there have been, nine or ten extra regiments organized in the militia. How does that come about? lit means that as Canada extends into the further districts the militia units composed of men who want to take part in the defence of their country, desire ito reorganize itbiemiselwes into militilai negir ments. This has been permitted by the department, and if this reduction of $20,000 were made it would mean that the commanding officers of these regiments might suffer a reduction of the very proper allowances made to them. What are the allowances? I think they receive a dollar per man in the strength, and that is a very small amount to give to the commanding officer who starts a militia regiment. Hon-gerutlemen opposite who do not understand these Ithingsi-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: -ought to be told-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. M'OWAT:	I understand that there
are very few of them who have ever organized militia regiments, but those who have done so will realize that there is a great expense inseparable from the work. A man has practically to give up his time and business to get his battalion together, and it is a very snjall amount to compensate him for his work to give him this dollar per main on the strength. And alter that he is very much out of pocket in connection with the work he does. The same thing applies to drill instruction. Tie is put to expense to get his men into shape; then there must be considered such items as the care of arms, postage, etc. So that if new battalions, struggling as they are in the remote parts of the country in an endeavour to get into shape for the defence of their country, are to be discouraged by the cutting ofl of the whole allowance for these expenses, what are we going to say to the officers who have undertaken the formation of these new battalions? I think it is a great pity that this item should have been the one pounced upon by the leader of the Opposition as a basis for a general attack.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I desire to say a word in support of the position taken by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat). An item of this kind takes my mind back to the period before the war and the immediate entry of Canada into the conflict. As one who observed the events od those days, I cannot fail to pay tribute to the gentlemen who composed the active militia of Canada for the way in which they took up the duties of active militia men and served to rally recruiting throughout the whole Dominion from one end of it to the other. They had served for many years during the time of peace because, being largely men from allplasses of life, they had a penchant to engage in military work if even for temporary periods one after another. But when the war came this country witnessed as fine a spirit from the active militia of Canada as was ever shown in any country in the world. They immediately became real soldiers, left their places of business, went to recruiting stations, then to regimental headquarters, and formed the rallying points around which General Hughes can say that so much splendid work was done. These men capably handled the situation and fostered the patriotic feeling that developed when the war broke out. Now, there is no pay in it worth the name, and I am glad to see that the leader of the Opposition recognizes the principle of the item.
He approves of the item itself but his objection is that it is $20,000 too much. Personally, I think it is probably $20,000 too little. I am afraid that in some items the Government of the day is too much inclined to cheeseparing. There are some items in regard to which I hold the opposite view; but as regards this item, from knowledge I have obtained locally in my own county and knowledge I have in regard to other counties throughout Ontario, I would say that this House should show its very best spirit towards the active militia of Canada, because they are serving as citizen soldiers. There is no element of pay in the work for them, and it is not even a small tribute to them that this item should be increased by $20,000. I have very much pleasure in supporting the item, although, as I said before, there are some items of which I am not so whole-heartedly in favour.
Air. J. E. d'ANJOU (Rimouski): M<\ Chairman, I do not share the opinion expressed by the hon. member '.from Parkdale (MJr. Mowat) whose militaristic views arc well known to. the House and the country. Everybody is aware that hiis most earnest desire is the establishment of military camps in Canada. Some resolutions he has moved in the House this year are evidence of such a desire. For my part, I want to protest in the most energetic manner against the Estimates which the hon. Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) is asking Parliament.
It seems to me that the war just ended cost enough in blood and treasure and that all such things should be relegated to the past. If I understand aright, the war beyond the seas was fought for the destruction of militarism in general and Prussian militarism in particular; hence I feel that the present is not time to set up a military regime in Canada. For my own part, I am an anti-militarist last-ditcher, because I believe that militarism leads to imperialism. As the hon. leader of the Opposition pointed cut this afternoon we are spending this year for the Militia, the Mounted Police and our future navy, $60,000,000. It appears to me that the part of wisdom would be to spend no more money for purposes of destruction. I'ersonally I have not the slightest intention of voting one single penny for either the Militia or the Navy. I thank goodness, the war is over. The League of Nations has been established and, according the Hon. President of the Privy Council we are members of this League which was founded for the prevention of future wars. It is therefore useless for Canada, in the face of



[Stage Direction]
a huge national debt of $3,000,000,000, to spend for military purposes the amount which the 'Government is asking the House to vote this year; rather should this amount be held in reserve and used to wipe out a part of the enormous burden incurred through our stupid extravagance during the war.
'Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further to say. I am opposed to all militarism, as a matter of principle. The voters I represent think as I do and it behooved me as their spokesman in Parliament to lodge an energetic protest against the expenditure which this Government seeks to incur not only for the Militia but for the Navy.
Thomas Alexander Crerar: I should like to ask the minister why it is considered necessary to increase the artillery units and establish machine gun corps at the present time. I believe the overwhelming desire of the Canadian people is to get away from military expenditures. I quite appreciate the fact that we may not yet have sufficiently progressed towards the millennium to be ready to abolish entirely such expenditure.
But there is a change in the world; everyone is hoping that the horrors and perils of war are largely at an end in this poor old universe of ours. I really cannot see the purpose of extending our military establishment in Canada in the way I understood the minister to say was proposed by the addition of new artillery units and other arms of the service hitherto unknown to us. I would like to see Canada set an example to the world, even if we are only a small country numerically by keeping away from increased military expenditures. We all know the moral effect of these expenditures. It is an easy thing to create an atmosphere that accustoms people to uniforms, soldiers and all the accoutrements of war, but it is not w.ar that we want to see at the present time. We want to see a condition of affairs brought about which will enable us to get away from this sort of thing. I would like to see the Government-I am not saying for a moment it is not doing so-do-every thing; it possibly can to encourage the idea underlying the League of Nations proposal to bring about conditions throughout the world that will make war largely impossible in the future.
I recognize the immense value that the militia has been to this country. I recognize the value there is in the physical training that accompanies it. But I must say I do look with a feeling of depression on >the idea of adding to our military estab-

lush m.ent ill (the wiay it is apparently proposed toy ibhe mdlndisitier. Let us see if Iwe cannot gteft along for a few years at any rate without any additional expenditure. After la'll this is a practical question. Whom are )we preparing against ait the present time? The Government may have some information that the House hiais not got, tout if the Gpvemimeinlt are proposing to add to the military eistatolishiment thait we had in this country prior to itlhle War I think the House is entitled to thie relasoms why they are asking foir this vote.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: I understood my hon. friend the Minister of Militia to mention 25 batteries as being the new artillery unit. I would like him to give the House an idea of the cost of these new batteries.


Hugh Guthrie: Do you mean the equipment of the batteries?


Joseph Archambault: The equipment
of the artillery.


Hugh Guthrie: The artillery we have?
I cannot tell what it did cost. We purchased it and, used it for the war; it has been, reshipped to Canada. I believe it is artillery of very high quality. The same observation applies to the machine guns. It involves no new expenditure in either branch. We have the guns to equip these new batteries. That is perhaps one reason why the batteries are authorized. The fact that we are increasing on paper the number of units does not mean that numerically we are increasing the force of men. The units are not, and will not be, up to strength; but it is very useful, where you cannot get a regiment of 600 or 700 men, to have one of 100 or 200. The estimate for annual training is based on the training of 80,000 men whereas the year before the war the number was up to 100,000. We have more corps and I think something might be said in favour of the diversity of services. There i's no doubt that any country now that seeks to maintain a force of militia-I do not care how insignificant it is-must adopt the machine gun systeip. That was one of the great secrets, one of the great developments, of the war. We were no sooner in the war than we realized that. Now we have the guns. We also have a large number of trained men in Canada. We want to induce them to go back into the units with their experience and for that purpose we want to constitute the units. It is the same as with the artillery. The artillery

is a very important branch of the service, it was so considered prior to the great war and it was tremendously developed in the war. Some of the ablest gunners in the world live in this country. We have some of the most modern and up-to-date artillery in this country. We do not propose to let it rust and rot, but in so far as is reasonable we propose to make use of it. On the next item I had expected to explain to the committee that our proposal in regard to the militia only involves 80,000 men as against 100,000 in pre-war times. While we have more units, we have no more men. Our numerical strength is not any greater at the present time than it was before. My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) looks forward to the day when disarmament shall be the general thing throughout the world. While that does sound good it may be a long way from now. I have heard it said that the United States would indulge in disarmament after the war, but I have a clipping from the New York Times of last week saying that they have just passed through Congress a Bill authorizing an expenditure of $466,000,000 on military matters this year which is far and away above any prewar expenditure for similar purposes. Of this amount $40,000,000 is for an air service which they did not have before. I am sure that my hon. friend from Marquette will take a reasonable view. Does he agree with me that back in the days of the Laurier Government we had a modest establishment which was something fitting to the country? If he does that is about where we are going to land with this estimate. The sum $6,000,000 $7,000,000 or $8,000,000, was voted in those days. You can double that amount to-day. The cost of each private in the force at that time was $1.58; to-day the actual cost of a man is $3.26, or more than double. Twelve million dollars looks pretty large. In pre-war days it would be $6,000,000 or $7,000,000. Our force is no greater. Our permanent force, or our standing army, is only 656 men more than before. If we had a modest, reasonable equipment before the war that is what we are going to have now. But we cannot have these two things at the same price. My hon. friends opposite are shocked at the amount. Let them consult their own private affairs as to the question of cost. Things have doubled up; we know it; it is not only here; it is all over. Now, if we were attempting to expand our militia
into an active force of, say, 100,000 men and a permanent force of p,000 or 10,000 men, the figures instead of being those I have submitted would be $25,000,000 or $30,000,000. It is the modesty of the number that commends itself to me, and the reasonableness of the cost, having regard to present prices.
, Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:	Am I right in
understanding the minister to say that no new artillery will be bought?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Joseph Archambault: Then (I would
like the minister to listen to a despatch which was published in the Montreal Star of December 20, headed, "To ship artillery for Canada's use. General King now inspecting full equipment in England." The despatch proceeds:
General H. B. King, of the Canadian Artillery, has arrived in England to inspect the artillery which is being shipped to Canada for use of the Militia Forces. A full equipment is being acquired here for four divisions and one cavalry brigade, with the exception of Mechanical Horse Transport.
I understand that much of this such as the Webb equipment of rifles for artillery, is desired for use in summer training next year.
Canada has established a credit with Britain, when it turned in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stores in France after the Armistice.
This credit now being utilized to acquire the necessary modern military equipment. Much new stuff is included, while all must pass tests as being serviceable. For motor vehicles turned in to the Imperial authorities, Canada is credited with prices received from the sales of surplus vehicles last June and July, when the higtest prices ruled.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this despatch contradicts the answer given to me by the minister. He states that no new artillery will be bought.


Hugh Guthrie: That is right.


Joseph Archambault: I would like to
know from him if this despatch is right or not, because it is contradictory of his statement.


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot tell about the despatch. I am not bound by the despatch in any shape or form; I am bound by my own statement.


Joseph Archambault: I know that.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, I would like that understood by my hon. friend. Anything that the Montreal Star publishes may or may not be correct. The facts are as I have stated them. That equipment is our equipment. We had a tremendous amount

of equipment in Great Britain, France and Belgium. We turned in to Great Britain all the equipment which we did not want, and which they could use. We took from them what we could use out of the general pool in exchange for ours, and instead of bringing back here an unnecessary number of top coats, boots and the like, we brought back the guns we did want. These are the guns General King selected, and these guns are now in Canada. We have a full supply of artillery and machine guh's, and we are not purchasing.


Lucien Cannon: When was General King sent to England, may I ask?


Hugh Guthrie: I am informed it was
the beginning of the present year that he was sent over to make these selections. I cannot give the exact date.


Lucien Cannon: Who gave him his instructions?


Hugh Guthrie: He went by the instructions of the then Minister of Militia.


Lucien Cannon: Who was the Minister of Militia then?


Hugh Guthrie: My predecessor.


Lucien Cannon: General Mewburn?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: Did General King make a report?


Hugh Guthrie: He is not back yet. He has just returned, I am told.


Lucien Cannon: I understand that the
General is not back, and has not made a report. That being so, is the minister in a position to state to the House as positively as he did a minute ago, exactly what the General has done in England?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. I am so informed by my own deputy, who is very familiar with the facts.


Lucien Cannon: How many guns were taken over by General King?


Hugh Guthrie: I have not the details by me; I suppose they could be furnished during the discussion.


Lucien Cannon: Are those guns of big or small calibre?


Hugh Guthrie: They are not all the
same; there are 18-pounders, 4.5's, and other guns. There was a selection made of what we anticipated would be required by our service.
IMr. Guthrie.]


Lucien Cannon: What is the value of those guns?


Hugh Guthrie: I could not give that to my hon. friend. Probably the information could be obtained, though.


Lucien Cannon: I would like to have the information, because the minister stated that an exchange was made as between the . Canadian Government and the Imperial Government, that a certain quantity of supplies were turned over to the British Government,. and that in exchange the Canadian Government took these guns. So I think it would be most interesting for the committee to have the information I am asking for. The minister has all his officials all around him and it ought to be easy for him to give that information.


Mr. PECK:: I might perhaps rise at this point to inform my very good friend from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) that the Canadian artillery especially the heavy artillery, wag probably the best and most efficient at the front. I am sorry that he had not the same opportunities of observing it in action as I had. I say this in no taunting spirit, for I am very friendly with the hon. gentleman.
I rise to deplore the tendency, so prevalent at the present time, to discredit our militia system,.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Well, all right.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have no money.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: If I am wrong I am very pleased to be put right.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are wrong in that.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: My hon. friend from Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) will tell you that it has been the policy of this Parliament to starve itlhe Mil'itfia Department in nil those votes that should be appropriated to it. I myself think that we cannot do better than establish a strong voluntary system. And I would recommend this to my hon. friends opposite. If you do not want conscription, if you do not w'ant universal training, the best thing to do is to have a strong voluntary system. To accomplish that you have got to give the Militia Department something to go on with, and you won't get anywhere by trying to deprive the minister of the vote he wants to get through. I think he is altogether too modest in his requests for supply, and personally 1 think

we cannot do better than give him support on this vote;


Lucien Cannon: In answer to my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Pepk), Mr. Chairman, I only wish to say that the members on both sides of the House admire very much the courage of which he gave many a proof overseas. We are also gratified to have among us an officer who bears on his breast the highest decoration that the British Empire can bestow-the Victoria Cross. But I may add that I have always been under the impression that all heroes, like the member for Skeena, had two main qualities, first, bravery-and certainly the hon. and gallant member has it-and, secondly, modesty. The second quality he has not shown so well to-night. Before the hon. and gallant member interrupted me I was asking the minister about the artillery which had been bought in England. I will not be satisfied to let this item pass until the minister gives us that information, no matter what members on the other side may say. We are entitled to that information and we wish to have it. The minister makes positive statements. It is easy for him to be very positive and I would like him to give us the information that is asked 'for. Unless he gives it this item will not pass.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. This item has to do with pay and allowances of the active militia, it has nothing to do with the purchase of artillery.


Georges Henri Boivin: I did not interrupt the member of Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) because I felt that his remarks had been occasioned, to a certain extent, by the explanation given by the Minister of Militia, but the point of order is well taken. The item at present before the committee is a vote for "Allowances, Active Militia"; and has nothing to do with the purchase of artillery and supplies. I am obliged to rule that the discussion which has just taken place is not relevant to the item under consideration.


Joseph Archambault: May I be permitted to point out that the minister has given as a reason for the increase in this item the addition of new units to the militia? Certainly when we are talking about artillery that has been bought in England for these new units we are quite in order.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out to the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) that he is not in order
in

discussing the ruling of the Chair after that ruling has been given. The rules of the House provide that a decision of the Chair is subject to appeal but cannot be discussed.


Joseph Archambault: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that before you decided the point of order you might have asked hon. members to speak to it.


Ernest Lapointe: Quite right.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Joseph Archambault: I am simply
pointing out a rule of the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Chairman, bowing to your decision, I would continue the discussion of this item. The Minister of Militia pointed out that the number of artillery units ought to be increased because the country had at its disposal artillery which should be used. What was the number of artillery units last year and what will be the number this year?


Hugh Guthrie: I think there were
exactly fifty in the Militia of Canada last year. The increase will be to seventy-five.


Lucien Cannon: There will be an increase of twenty-five?


Hugh Guthrie: Twenty-five batteries.


Lucien Cannon: What was the amount of artillery last year for the fifty units and what will be the amount of artillery used this year for the seventy-five?


Hugh Guthrie: The authorized strength last year was fifty batteries. But my hon. friend will understand that these batteries were not recruited last year; they were not drilled last year. Many of them had become greatly depleted since the outbreak of the war and existed almost altogether on paper. In the town where I reside there are two batteries of artillery, and I know that when there was a muster last year no members of it were left. They are trying now to reorganize these units. I think the same thing is pretty general all over the country, not only with the artillery, but with most of the infantry units as well.


Lucien Cannon: Under ordinary military rules, what amount of artillery would be used for fifty units and what amount of artillery would be used for seventy-five, supposing these seventy-five were in activity and not merely on paper?


Hugh Guthrie: Well, these are four-gun batteries; that would involve three hundred

guns. I am not sure whether there are four or six machine guns to each 'battery.


Lucien Cannon: So that last year with fifty artillery units we needed two hundred guns; this year, with seventy-five units we need three hundred, a difference of one hundred. Have we those one hundred guns in Canada?


Hugh Guthrie: I am informed that they are all here. I understand that they have all arrived now. [DOT]


Lucien Cannon: Where did they arrive from?


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. In view of the fact that a point of order has been raised I must direct the attention of the hon. member (Mr. Cannon) to the fact that under this item, he is not in order in discussing the question where or how these guns may have been obtained.


Lucien Cannon: I appeal from your ruling, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER took the Chair and submitted the question to the House in the following terms:
Upon the discussion in Committee of Supply of Hem 91 of the Militia Estimates respecting allowances to the active militia, the Chairman ruled that a debate concerning the acquisition of guns for the Artillery was not in order under paragraph 5 of rule 13. and from this ruling Mr. Cannon appeals to the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the ruling of the Chairman be sustained?


Lucien Cannon: I rise to a point of order. I contend that the Deputy Speaker of the House who presides over the Committee of the Whole cannot sit when -an appeal is taken to the Speaker as Speaker. My second point of order is that the statement of proceedings in Committee of the Whole is not as complete as it might be.


Georges Henri Boivin: I declare that both points are not well taken.


Mr. CAHILL:: Explain.


Georges Henri Boivin: The rule is quite clear, that when Mr. Speaker hap-, pens to be momentarily absent from the building, the Deputy Speaker takes the Chair and asks another member to make the report of appeal which he at once submits to the House. The report of the Chairman was prepared in consultation with, and with the assistance of the Clerk Assistant, and under the rules and the well-established custom of this House the report as submitted to the Chair must be accepted.


Mr. CLEMENTS:: I was paired on all
party questions with the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling o-f the Chair.


Mr. SHAW:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Verville). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling o-f the Chair


Mr. DOHERTY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bonavemture (Mr. Marcil). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair.
The House resumed in committee, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.


Lucien Cannon: What is the number of commanding officers?
Mr. -GUTHRIE: There is one commanding -officer for each infantry regiment, cavalry regiment, artillery unit and machine gun unit.
-Mr. CANNON:	Making a total of how
many?
Mr. -GUTHRIE: As nearly as I can recall, 105 infantry, 75 artillery, 14 machine gun, and 12 cavalry commanding officers.


Lucien Cannon: What is the amount of allowance received by the commanding officer of an infantry battalion?
Mr. -GUTHRIE: The details are as follows :
(a) Command Pay and Drill Instruction.
To officers commanding regiments, etc., for N. C.Os. and men actually trained:-
Belonging to regimental staff.. .. $1.00 eacli
On strength of companies, etc	60	"
To commanders of Batteries, Squadrons, Companies and DepartT mental Units for N.C.Os. and
men actually trained	 1.00	"
(b) Care of Arms.
To officers commanding regiments of Cavalry and Infantry and individual units of other corps in sums ranging from $10 to $170 when there 'is no salaried caretaker, and from $5 to $100 when a caretaker is provided.
(e) Postage Allowance.
To officers commanding regiments and corps, from $2 to $15 annually, dependent upon strength of unit.
(d) Contingent Allowance.
To officers commanding Cavalry and Infantry Brigades at Camps of Instruction $10 for the period of the camp, and- to officers commanding Independent Corps in sums ranging from $2 to $1-0 per annum.


Lucien Cannon: How many units are
actually reorganized and active, instead of being simply on paper as mentioned by the minister a few moments ago?


Hugh Guthrie: The city corps are fairly well organized. There are 68 of them and their strength is estimated at 30,000. The rural divisions are not scrwell organized. I doubt very much whether in the province of Ontario there are -more than t-wo or three fully organized rural battalions. Some of them are organized ten, some twenty, some twenty-five, and some thirty per cent of their strength. The artillery batteries are organized -to the extent- of about 50 per cent. The machine gun units are all organized and the officers have been appointed, but they are only recruited up to about 20 per cent of their strength up to the present time. The cavalry regiments are all organ-

ized and officers appointed, the regiments being recruited up to abou/fc 15 per cent of their strength.


Lucien Cannon: Where are the 68 city corps located? How are they distributed by provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: I have not that information here or I would be very glad to give it. My hon. friend will find it in the red book called the Militia List.


Lucien Cannon: Who appoints the officers commanding these new corps?


Hugh Guthrie: The officer commanding is selected by a Selection Board. In the first place, the old officers of the regiment are called together and express their choice by a vote. The name submitted goes before a board specially charged with the selection of officers. After the 'board passes upon the name, it is submitted to the Inspector-General, and if approved by him goes before the Militia Council. If approved, it then goes to the Privy Council, and when approved there, the appointment is gazetted.


Lucien Cannon: What about the other
officers?


Hugh Guthrie: The commanding officer selects his own officers and submits the list to the officer commanding the district to which the regiment belongs. When approved there, the list is forwarded to headquarters.


Lucien Cannon: Would the minister give the names submitted to the Militia Council for the Quebec regiments?


Hugh Guthrie: Does my hon. friend mean all Quebec regiments?


Lucien Cannon: No, the Quebec City regiments.


Hugh Guthrie: Does my hon. friend
want the names of the men selected?


Lucien Cannon: I understood by what the minister said that the old officers of each battalion would meet and vote and then the names would be forwarded to the Militia Council.


Hugh Guthrie: The names would be forwarded in the first instance to the district commanding officer.


Lucien Cannon: Has the minister the
names?


Hugh Guthrie: I have not, but I think I could get them from the deputy. The officer of the 9th Regiment is Colonel Chau-

veau; we cannot give the name of the officer for the 8th Regiment at the present time. These are both Quebec regiments. I believe they are the only city corps in Quebec.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the war record of Colonel Chauveau?


Hugh Guthrie: I understand his services were exclusively within Canada. I do not know the circumstances, but I must inform the committee in these matters I do not interfere in any way with the selections made by my responsible advisers. In every case I accept their recommendations, and of necessity I would not know the individual qualifications of the men. I could have the record of this officer looked up and furnish it to my hon. friend at a later date if he desires.


Samuel Hughes: Colonel Chauveau was one of those excellent officers who served in Canada. He is a gentleman with a large family and when the war broke out he commanded the Rimouski regiment in Canada, securing volunteers.
Mr. LAPOINTE Colonel Piuze was in charge of the Rimouski regiment.


Samuel Hughes: Colonel Piuze commanded it when it went to the front, but Colonel Chauveau had charge of the regiment in this country and turned out a fine body of men for Colonel Piuze to take overseas. Colonel Piuze would be one of the first men to say that Colonel Chauveau gave him every assistance.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no doubt about that.


Samuel Hughes: I was instrumental in keeping Colonel Chauveau at home for organizing purposes' of a very useful character. He could not very well be spared to go to the front at that time, and as Colonel Piuze was a younger man we kept Colonel Chauveau for organizing purposes. He is one of the best organizing and military officers in Canada.


Lucien Cannon: In the city of Quebec Colonel Chauveau is known as one of the best militia officers. As commanding officer of the 9th Battalion he will do well, and if the Government always chose as wisely as they did in this instance there would be fewer complaints.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: I should like to make a few observations which will differ

from the views expressed by my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Peek). I desire to make these observations at this moment in order to shorten, so far as I am concerned, the proceedings in regard to the rest of the militia votes. My hon. friend said that there was an impression in a good many quarters that the militia had been starved in Canada. Well, I feel that I am on sure ground when I tel'l him that, on the other hand, there is a very widespread feeling from one end of Canada to the other that it is very doubtEul indeed whether the people have got the full value for what they have spent. That is the other side of the question, and I am not going to argue it; it exists in the public mind. My hon. friend, in a sentence preceding that in which he spoke of the starved militia, told us that the artillery branch-I think that is what he said-was the most efficient in the Canadian army.


Lucien Cannon: I rise to a point of order. I say that the hon. member is exceeding the limits of the item under discussion.


Michael Clark: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I point out-


Lucien Cannon: I ask for a ruling.


Michael Clark: Surely the question of starving or feeding high the militia of Canada [DOT]comes under a proposal to reduce the vote.


Lucien Cannon: I ask for a decision on my point of order, Mr. Chairman. I understand that when this item was first discussed the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) made a speech along general fines. He was followed by' the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Griesbaeh), who also spoke on general lines.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I thought it was on General Currie.


Lucien Cannon: The Chairman afterwards ruled that we would not be allowed to go beyond the strict limits of the item under consideration, and I contend, Sir, that a general discussion of the militia is now out of order.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out to
the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) that no general discussion has taken place, especially in .so far as the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Griesbaeh) is concerned, because he has not spoken since the House resolved itself into Committee of Supply.


Lucien Cannon: He spoke to-night while I was here.


Hugh Guthrie: That was in the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: While the hon. member for Dorchester is quite right in saying that a general discussion of militia Estimates, or a discussion of all the affairs concerning the militia of Canada, would not be in order, I am not prepared to say that the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer have gone to that extent. I do not yet feel obliged to call him to order.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: If I may interpose at this
time, Mr. Chairman-


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for Red Deer has the floor.


Michael Clark: I was trying to- give
reasons, arising out of the views of our people on general military expenditure, why I shall vote for the reduction of $20,000 in this particular item. It appears to me that general observations on that question have a distinct hearing on the vote. I was saying that my hon. friend when he spoke of the starved militia, had preceded that remark by the statement that the artillery branch was the most efficient arm of the Canadian army. Now, if a starved militia in peace time makes the most efficient service in war time, my hon. friend's argument is rather in favour of a reduction. And there is this further general consideration, which also has a bearing on the, point, namely, the the Canadian army, the product of two or there short years in a country small, as to population and probably the most peaceful that entered the war, nevertheless was such as to carry as .much terror to the hearts of the enemy as any other branch of the Allies.


Lucien Cannon: Order.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend further argued foT a strong voluntary service. On that point he did not quite argue on the same lines as the minister. The minister is of .course anxious to get his vote, and he recommended it to the committee, not along the lines of providing a strong voluntary service, but because, although there are 25 new units, they are not recruited up to full strength. While hi.s military follower recommended this vote on the ground of .a strong military force, my hon. friend the minister took exactly the opposite ground. On that point a very practical consideration arises in my mind. My hon. friend says that there are twenty-five new units and that these are necessary to get all classes of military service .represented icn the militia of Can-

ada. He says they are not recruited up to full strength. But, let me tell my hon. friend and the committee, that is just how militarism grows in a nation. We are told to-night that this vote should be given because these units are not up to full strength. I put it to you and to the committee: Will it not be the endeavour of those who are specially interested in militarism to get the units recruited to full strength at the earliest possible moment? That has been the history of militarism in all the nations of Europe. It will be its history here and it iis for that reason that I at any rate want to guard myself by voting correctly on this item and on the general principle that our people are opposed to militarism. If the leasons of the late war are properly learned they have surely proved that the way to win a war is to have a good cause, a strong people and, above all things, the last shot in the locker.
That brings me to what is, after all, the most important consideration to guide the committee at this time in their general attitude towards military expenditures. My hon. friend talks of making the expenditure equal to that before the war. I am not sure whether the leader of the Opposition did not approve of that attitude in a moderate or mild way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all.


Michael Clark: The state of the finances of this country should be paramount in our minds on this and all branches of expenditure, and that is a point, which has been raised by others, that I desire to press home with all the strength of conviction and of expression I am capable of. We had a prosperous country before the war. We had a government in prosperous conditions financially. Thank God, we have a prosperous country yet which, if wisely governed, will bear all the burden that the war has cast upon it. But a wise government must be forthcoming, and it is not wise to multiply certain lines of expenditure to the enormous sum of $60,000,000 at a time when we are having to impose taxes of a totally new description, whose outcome is so doubtful, to meet this and other expenditures. We must get new taxation-yes, Sir, but we must cut down expenditures, and if we do not cut them on Estimates like this I do not know where we are going to begin.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I really feel that I should say that if a former remark of mine may have offended the hon. member for Dor-

Chester (Mr. Gannon) I certainly spoke with a great deal of haste. I feel very strongly on the question of the Militia Estimates and of the militia of this country. If I did offend the hon. gentleman it was not meant from my heart. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mir. Glark),. whom I agree with on economic questions probably more than any one in this House, made some broad statements against the Militia Estimates. I am going to ask my hon. friend: Are we going to defend this country or not? How are you goinig to defend it, if you have not a strong militia system? My hon. friend made some comparisons in regard to the militia before the war. It is our pride to think of what this country did in the war. Here we were, a young, untried nation. Nobody knew what we could do. They looked upon us as sort of Eskimos, or Indians that were buried in the snow. But, this young nation entered the war. The supreme moment came. Our soldiers went forth on the great battlefields of France and Flanders, where nations had struggled for centuries for the mastery of the world, and achieved great victories against the best army the world had ever known. But at the same time I do not know that they would have achieved any great victories if they had had no training. We wish to train our militia under the voluntary system and to bring them to a state of perfection.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I think the hon. member is going far beyond the limit. He is discussing and paying a tribute to what has been done during the war. I agree with him upon that point,, but on other-occasions the Chair has held that it would not be proper to discuss ^those matters on these Estimates.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: There is one single word I wish to say-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman,. I want a decision on the point of order.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Does the hon. gentleman (M,r. Tweedie) wish to speak to the point of order?


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: No, Air. Chairman.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I do not want to stir up any more discussion of this nature, but I think we should all act as good, loyal Canadians in support of the minister on these Alildtia Estimates. Therefore, I am not going to interpose such remarks as I have been

making if they are going to offend hon. gentlemen opposite.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They do not offend me at 'all.


Georges Henri Boivin: The point of order
raised by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Caegrain) is that the remarks of the hon. member for Gkeena (Mr. Peck) are not relevant to the item under consideration. I am not prepared to draw the line quite so severely as the hon. member for Charlevoix would have me draw it. I consider that the existence of the active militia of Canada and what it accomplished during the late war have a great deal to do with the vote of an allowance to the officers of the active militia, and in view of the fact that my hon. friend from Charlevoix voted just a moment .ago that more latitude should be given, I would not feel justified in calling the hon. member for Skeena to order.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I wish to say one or two words with regard to the appropriation, whether that appropriation may relate to the naval, police or military service which we have under consideration at the present moment. The first, fundamental principle of any government is that we maintain peace and order throughout the length and breadth of our country from the Atlantic to the Pacific from the North to the South. I was very much surprised to read in the newspapers the utterances of one of the officers of one of the most prominent associations in this country, Mr. C. G. MacNeil, chief secretary of the Great War Veteran's Association. I trust that the newspaper report of his remarks is incorrect, and, if so, everything I say in regard to this question I shall very gladly withdraw. But, if that report is correct, we have a body of men in this Dominion who say that if they cannot .accomplish what they desire by peaceful means, they will do so by a revolution. That is what a representative of the 500,000 or 600,000 .men who fought in the great war is reported to have said: If you do not give us what we ask, then we shall have a revolution corresponding to the Russian revolution. Every one realizes-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: There is no order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Every one is aware that so far as the revolution in Russia is concerned-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: -that so far as that revolution is concerned, even the American Federation of Labour which met in Montreal to-day, said: We will not back up that revolution, because its leaders do not represent the majority of the Russian people. When any man-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Georges Henri Boivin: Under the ruling given a few moments ago, the horn, member in discussing the revolution in Russia is somewhat far afield from the item before the committee. I presume that he is referring to that revolution by way of comparison, but a strict interpretation of the rules would oblige me to declare that such a reference is not in order.	.
M,r. TWEEDIE: Mr. Chairman, I always bow to your rulings, because I regard them as the rulings of a gentleman who is eminently qualified toi fill the position he occupies, and I shall refrain from any further reference to the revolution in Russia. But I want to tell this House that when ianv man-I care not whether he is a Tory or a Grit-


An hon. MEMBER:: Or a Unionist?


Mr. TWEED  IE@: -or a Unionist, or a Labourite, or a U.F.O., or a Great War Veteran's representative, or any one else- when lie states that if a mandate issued on behalf o.f any organization is not complied with revolutionary means will be adopted to force compliance, then I say: Let us vote not only wh*t the Minister of Militia asks for in this case, but let us vote more if it is absolutely necessary to maintain the honour, the dignity and the order which must be maintained in this country.
Some hem. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: We are fighting for a few paltry dollars, but when we get utterances from men, who supposedly occupy prominent positions, that they will resort to revolution to enforce their claims-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: -I say-
Some bon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: My hon. friends isay ''Order, order." If they will take up the newspapers of Tuesday morning they will find a report of the meeting in this city that I refer to. I want to point out to

them that I premised my remarks by stating that they were based on the supposition that the report is correct. It the sneaker at that meeting contradicts that report and says that he is not in favour of revolution, then my remarks fall to the ground. But if there is any man in the Dominion, I care not who he is-


Edmond Proulx: Louder. *
Mr. TW'EEDIE: -if he talks about revolution, I say: Let us vote this Estimate, and let us vote as much more money as imay be necessary in order that we may maintain order-
'Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: -and maintain the authority of our Government, I do not care which party is in power.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I fail
to see how my hon. friend (Mr. Tweedie) will remedy the condition he is lamenting by increasing the vote for the militia. If there is one branch of governmental activity as to which the people of this country are opposed at the present time to grant any increased expenditure it is the Militia Department. It is all very well to say that in the pre-war period we were spending as much money as is asked for by this present item, but, as has been pointed out, there was money to spend at that time. Conditions have changed, and to-day we are facing an enormous debt,-a debt which cannot be paid by us but which future generations will have to discharge. At this time, when the people are bled white by taxation; this Government is juggling with taxes,-the taxes change colour every day, and we do not know to-day what new taxes will be imposed to-morrow. And why this heavy taxation? Because this enormours debt has been incurred to pay the expenses of a war that was to end all wars. That was the argument used in all parts of this country. This Parliament was elected and this Government was formed, it was alleged, to bring the war to a successful conclusion and so end all wars in the future. Yet we are asked to-day to vote an increased amount for the militia. I say that the people everywhere are opposed to any such increase. I can fairly judge public opinion as it is expressed in the newspapers of the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and I find that every one 'is in favour of reducing our military expenditure. Why should we increase it? At the present time a League of Nations has been formed, we
[Mi-. Tweedie.]
are sending a representative to all its conferences, and we are paying our share of the money necessary to support that League. Other countries are decreasing their military expenditures, in spite of what has been said on the other side. I was reading an article in a newspaper to-day stating that in Great Britain a League to End War has been formed. Many men prominent in politics, in church and in civil life are members of that League, as also are gentlemen who served in the war cabinet of Britain. A deputation from that League had an interview with the cabinet of Mr. Lloyd George and asked for a reduction in military expenditures, and asked also that steps be taken for the purpose of avoiding future wars. They stated that the best means to accomplish this was to reduce military expenditures and to stop the manufacture of munitions and other war materials. The old saying that "if you want peace you must prepare for war," has been proved a fallacy, and people no longer believe it. It is sedulously circulated by the manufacturers of munitions.
Now, my hon. friends on the other side ask: Why did you oppose this special item? We are opposed to the whole increased expenditure on the militia. This item will have the fate of the other items, and II for one am going to vote for the amendment. My last word to the minister is: Accept the suggestion that our expenditure be not increased in any manner whatever. If we have any money to spend, let us spend it to cultivate the arts of peace.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: What has taken place with regard to military and naval appropriations in Japan?


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend is going to take Japan as his model, I am not going to take Japan as mine. I am a Canadian, and as some hon. members have said, let us give an example to Japan, not take one from her.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I do not want to take Japan as a model, but my hon. friend knows well that the recent war appropriations of Japan have been heavier than they were at any time during the war; they are proportionately heavier than those of any other country in the civilized world. My hon. friend's altruistic ideas may be very good. It is true that Great Britain and her colonies were in a state of unpreparedness when the great war broke out. I tell you that you must be prepared to meet your enemy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Who is the enemy?


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: We must have a naval policy in the Dominion of Canada and a small -start involving an expenditure of $2,500,000 is the very best start that we can make.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member (Mr. Tweedie) ought to be reminded, I think, that Japan was an ally of Britain throughout the war and that Canada's coasts on the West were protected by Japanese fleets during the war.


Mr. EDWARDS (rising):: 


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Do you suppose that the Dominion of Canada-


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has the floor.


William Cameron Edwards: I would like to know whether I have to give way to all the lawyers in the House. If I have, then I will do it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let the Doctor speak.


William Cameron Edwards: Not being a lawyer, I
find it somewhat difficult to follow the reasoning of some hon. members who have presented itheir views. My hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) condemns this item because there is an increase of $20,000 over the similar item of last year. He says that this is all wrong; that we should cut down our militia; that we were justified in time of peace in voting a similar amount for this purpose because, he says, we had the money then ito spend. His argument, in effect, is that there was no need for the militia then, 'but that we had the money and that we were justified in throwing it to the four winds. The member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) takes a somewhat similar view. He asks:	"Why this expenditure? What
enemy are you preparing to meet?" Well, if the hon. member takes that line of argument, what need is there for this expenditure at all? If he dismisses the question with the statement that there is no need for this vote because there is no prospective enemy against whom we have to guard, and if that argument holds good in regard to an increase of $20,000 in the item now under consideration, it holds goods with regard to every dollar voted for Militia and Defence. In the past we have voted millions of dollars in times of peace for militia purposes. There is no doubt that although the war is over there have been evidences of unrest in various pants of the 233
country, as there have been in practically every country of the world. I am not in favour of throwing money about broadcast in militia matters. I do not believe in militarism, but I do believe in sustaining a force sufficient to maintain the dignity of Canada and to maintain order in (this country in case of necessity. The minister has not exceeded the bounds of reason in asking the committee to give him a vote for $1-20,000 to meet the necessary expenses of those who will be called upon to form the personnel of Ithese various units. Having regard to increased costs, $20,000 strikes me as an exceedingly moderate increase in -connection with this item. The minister is keeping his militia Estimates well with in the bounds of what we considered right and proper before there was any war; in other words, he is keeping them within reasonable limits.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My criticism was based
on the statement of the minister that he is increasing the artillery units and other arms of the service over and above what we had in pre-war days. I think that the committee is entitled to know why he is doing that. The minister states that there will be an increase of twenty-five artillery units but no increase in the personnel. Well, an increase in the number of units will inevitably lead to an increase in the personnel, and that it the point upon which I based my criticism. My hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) leaves it to be inferred that an increase in the military establishment is necessary to keep order in Canada. The other night when the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell), brought up his Estimates for the mounted police, he said that it was necessary to maintain a force of this kind for the preservation of law and order. I quite agree that if anything of this kind becomes necessary it is better to use a police force than to call out the militia. But I do not think it is necessary to have these forces to maintain law and order in Canada. The people of Canada are a law-abiding people. The surest way to invite disturbance is to leave the impression upon ithe minds of the people thalt they are liable to be put down by armed forces.


William Cameron Edwards: May I ask my hon.
friend a question?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


William Cameron Edwards: I was directing my question to the hon. member for Marquette



(Mr. Crerar), not to any one else. The member for Marquette, if he admits the necessity for having, we will say, fifty militia units, will admit that with the expansion of ithe country and the opening up of new districts you cannot keep the number of units down to where it was ten or twelve years ago. If you make provision at all for militia and defence you must make provision for the expansion of the country and the opening up of new districts.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend made an argument rather than asked a question, but I am prepared to answer his question. I do not think there is any necessity or justification for increasing the number of artillery units when we consider the amount of taxes the people of this country will have to contribute for federal purposes. That simply emphasizes the fact that there is no justification for the increase.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: I desire to say a
word or two on behalf of the Estimate as presented by the minister. I regret very *much that the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has considered it desirable and wise to question an increased expenditure of $20,000 over last year. There is no doubt, as has been very frequently shown in this House, that Canada is the most poorly defended country in the world to-day, and when the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), recommend that we begin disarmament, we have not in this country anythinng to begin to disarm as armaments go. The minister has told us that the United States are voting $480,000,000 for their army, and according to their' own statement, they are going to have the largest navy in the world in 1924. Therefore, my hon. friends, who rely upon the defence of the League of Nations, who put their faith in the League of Nations-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Foster Cockshutt: My hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) stated that he put his faith in the League of Nations, and that was not disputed by my hon. friends opposite as being the correct argument. I do not want to discuss the League of Nations; I only mention it. I say: Do not put your trust in .the League of Nations, but put it in the Estimates of the Minister of Militia, which are of a very modest character. I come from a city that has a few militia units in

it. I know something of the self-sacrifice of the officers and men in those units, and they spend a great deal of their own money and an immense amount of their time in their country's service. That is what the militia of Canada has done for many years. ,The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) says that the end of all wars is at hand, but I do not agree with him. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) says that we have just fought a war to end war, and that that was said on the platform in our part of the country. I was on a good many platforms, and I told every audience that I addressed on this question that they need not look for the *end of all wars in our time or within a thousand years, unless humanity was entirely reconstructed from his boots to the top of his head. As long as humanity is as it is, we are going to have wars; and whether you have a league of nations or anything else, you must have a force that you can call to your aid when diplomatic effort fails. The hon. member for Marquette asked us to name the enemy that this appropriation is going to help to defend us against. It is not necessary to name an enemy; it would be a very unwise proposition to name an enemy, and my hon. friend, as a former minister of the Crown, ought to know that if we thought there was an enemy, the last thing we should do would be to name him. Let me instance to my hon. friend what might occur, and what I think he will agree might occur. There is a possibility that the United States and Japan might go to war.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Foster Cockshutt: I say that is a possibility, and if such a thing-


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Chairman-


William Foster Cockshutt: If such a thing happens-


Lucien Cannon: I rise to a point of order. I think the hon. gentleman has no right to discuss the international relations of different countries, and in support of my contention I might quote to the Chairman a decision recently given by a Speaker of the British House of Commons-


Georges Henri Boivin: Before calling the
hon. member to order, I wished to' see to what extent the remarks which he was proceeding to make referred to the item under discussion. If they are used as an argument to justify his vote in favour of this item in the Militia Estimates or if they are

used as an argument against the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition, they would be in order. Until I have ascertained if they are to be so used I cannot call the hon. member to order.


William Foster Cockshutt: Now that the cannons of Dorchester have ceased to thunder for a moment, I will proceed.


Lucien Cannon: Give us a plough.


William Foster Cockshutt: I was going to state that in order to keep out of the war, a force would .be necessary in Canada. Anybody knows that to break neutrality draws you into .the war, and with a militia and a standing army as weak as we have we would have only live or ten men per mile of our frontier to see that neutrality was observed and to keep ourselves out of the war. It is necessary in order that we might even observe neutrality and keep ourselves out of the war to see that no act of war is permitted on our side of the line from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That is not an easy matter, because the whole frontier would have to 'be policed. Therefore, the Minister of Militia is asking for a very modest amount to overtake what .might ibe considered a very grave -situation in case anything of that kind occurred. As to all wars being ended, my hon. friends- might as well say that all fires are ended because we have had an enormous conflagration that has burned up everything within a certain area and, therefore, we should discontinue insurance because no more fires are going to take place. As long as there is property left to bum, you are going to have fires; and as long as you have danger of fire, you want insurance, and this is a simple mattSr of insurance for the benefit of Canada, for the benefit of its citizens. Therefore it is only wise and, I think, a very moderate position that the minister takes when he asks us to vote only a few hundred thousand dollars. If the amount were $10,000,000 or $25,000,000, I would hold up both hands for it, and I am a man of peace; I have always been a man of peace.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Foster Cockshutt: My hon. friends opposite are very fond of a scrap with the tongue in political matters; but if they think it is not at all possible that we should ever come to blows, I hope we shall not; but I submit that the incendiary .speeches our hon. friends sometimes make lead to wordy conflicts, and wordy conflicts sometimes lead to blows between nations, and we have going on in the -world to-day a large quan-233J
tity of that. Therefore, it is only wise and considerate of this country and its citizens that -we should have a militia force and, I should say, a small army as well-and it is a very small army, 7,000 men, I believe, all told. We cannot maintain our dignity and self respect in a League of Nations or amongst the nations of the world unless we have something to show that, if war breaks out amongst humanity, we are going to bear our share of the white man's burden .according to our population and the extent of territory we have to defend. I trust my hon. friend across the way will withdraw his amendment and let -this appropriation go through, because the .amount is very moderate.
Amendment negatived: yeas 54, nays 69.


Lucien Cannon: Before the vote is registered I would like to ask if the vote given by the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Stewart) has been counted?


Mr. STEWART (West Hamilton):: Does the hon. member want to know what I was voting on?


Georges Henri Boivin: The Assistant Clerk informs me that the vote of the hon. member for West Hamilton was not counted. I might point, out that according to Parliamentary authorities the rule governing the vote in Committee of the Whole, is that any hon. member who is present in the Chamber when the vote is counted, has the right to vote. This is absolutely contrary to the rule governing the votes taken in special committees of the House and to that governing the vote in the House. I have never found a justification for the custom, but it is in existence, and therefore if the vote of the hon. member for West Hamilton had been counted, it would have been quite legal.


Frank S. Cahill: I would ask the hon. member for West Hamilton to tell us what he was voting on? Would the minister tell us how many cavalry officers have been appointed under this organization?


Hugh Guthrie: I have not the information here but I could give it to the hon. member the next time the Estimates are up.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the mode of appointing these cavalry officers?


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend must have been out of the House, because this is the third time I have given this information. The recommendation for a commanding officer goes first to a board of selection from

the old officers of the regiment. After being passed upon by that board, the name is submitted- to the Inspector General. If approved by him, it is submitted to the Militia Council, and if approved by that Council, it goes to the Privy Council -when, if approved, the appointment is gazetted. Every commanding officers is entitled to make his own slate of officers for his unit. He submits his slate to the commanding officers of the military district, who, if he approves, forwards it to headquarters, where it is dealt with, and the names are gazetted as in the case of the appointment of commanding officers. If the commanding officer of the district disapproves, the list is not forwarded, as a rule.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the increase in the number of cavalry officers appointed?


Hugh Guthrie: There have been twelve cavalry regiments organized to date, and there would be about twenty-four officers to each regiment.


Frank S. Cahill: About how many of an increase in the number of cavalry officers appointed?


Hugh Guthrie: My information is that there is no increase.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister told us that there was a decrease in the number of men from 100,000 to 80,000. Has there been a corresponding decrease in the number of officers?


Hugh Guthrie: The units have not been recruited. Many of them are recruited up to only 10 per cent of their strength, and the organization in some cases is only on paper, but they are starting out this week to get their men. Other units are recruited up to forty or fifty per cent; I should say that from fifty to sixty per cent is the highest. The proposal is based upon the number of regiments which I gave to the House. If these do not- materialize the money will certainly not be spent, -but we have to estimate for sufficient money to cover the possible expenditure. '


John Howard Sinclair: What
will happen if a rural regiment, for example, is recruited only up to ten per cent of its strength? Will the regiment be kept alive? Or will it be disbanded? What percentage is necessary in order to make it advisable to go on and train the regiment?


Hugh Guthrie: If a regiment should be recruited only up to ten per cent pf its strength it would be disbanded. I am hopeful that we shall do better than that. If 
fifty per cent of the strength is not obtained the regiment is disbanded.


Frank S. Cahill: What percentage of officers, and what percentage of men is required if the regiment is to continue?


Hugh Guthrie: We have provided in the Estimates for training eighty per cent of the full establishment. We shall not get that percentage, but that is the basis of the estimate.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to
point out the importance of this item providing for allowances to officers of the active militia. The history of the war shows that a. country without a militia is not nearly up to the level in manhood of a country with a trained militia. I suggest with all kindness that it would be the very best thing for the country if in every riding in Canada we had a militia corps in which all the young men could enroll. It has been pointed out again and again, as the records show,

and the clergymen of the country are behind the movement, realizing the strength of it,-that morally, mentally, physically and spiritually, the man who serves and has training in the militia of the country is better than the man who lacks that training. It has a tendency to build up a manly pirit, and among the lads who have returned from the front you will scarcely find one who has not improved physically, unless he has suffered wounds or been incapacitated. Those men who have not been injured are physically better as a result of their exertions, and their service has meant character and energy and inspiration to them. They are better than before they went into the service. And I would suggest to my hon. friends on both sides who have not joined the militia that they should do so and take the training afforded. At the end of six weeks or two months, I venture to say, there is not one of them who would not endorse every item the Minister of Militia presents to them along the line of a non-permanent active militia.
Annual Drill, $1,500,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This item for annual drill brings very forcibly. before us the situation in regard to expenditures and the possibilities of economy. In the general discussion we have gone over a good deal of ground, and mention has been made of the enormous expenditures with which the country is faced. I should like to remind thfe committee alt this stage, of the debate which we have just had on the

Budget and the figures which have been placed before Parliament by the Minister of Finance. I will not quote more than the Finance Minister's 'statement, in his introductory remarks, that at the present time the gross debt of Canada, according to the ledger, is $3,014,483,774.12 and the net debt $1,935,946,312.85.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I rise to a point of order.
I believe there is a rule of the House that provides that an hon. member speaking to a motion in any debate cannot refer to matters that have been brought out in any previous debate of the same session.


Ernest Lapointe: You will not expedite
business by these little exceptions, Brother Morphy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot understand why my hon. friend has risen to a point of order. When we are discussing Estimates and the amounts to be expended in 'this country, if we are mot to be permitted to mention what the national debt is, then whalfc a,re we to be allbwed to talk about? We are confronted with the glaring fact that this nation at- this moment has a gross national debt of $3,014,483,774.12, with a net debt of $1,935,940,312.85 which, as the Minister of Finance pointed out, is increased, after certain accounts are taken into consideration, to $2,273,305,436.92. We have been told by the Minister of Finance that the only possible way in which this debt can be reduced is by increased production on the one hand and retrenchment in expenditures on the other. Now, Sir, this item asking for $1,500,000 for annual drill compels ns to -a.sk whether -at this particular time we -are justified, in view of the ple-a of the Minister of Finance for increased production in order t-o m-eet the public debt -and! the ordinary expenditures of the country, in having any -annual drill at all this year which will take from the farms -and factories men who are needed first -and foremost for productive purposes. I would point out that we have in this country at the present time -an army of experienced men who need no drilling, -men who have been through the war and have suffered its hardships. No amount of drilling in the world will make them more efficient -than they are to-day, and until we are -through with the work of demobilization we can well afford to dispense altogether with annual drills. That is the -position which we on this side of the Ho-use take on this question, and we take that position on two grounds: First, that for the purposes
of increased production, which is_ most essential at the present time, we should encourage men to engage actively in every work that will tend to that end. not even withdrawing them temporarily at this particular season; second, that if we can save a million and a half or a million and a quarter dollars on something that is wholly unnecessary, it is a saving which is all to the good at this time. Let me ask the committee a question. Last year the annual drill wras dispensed with: Is there a single member of the House, or a single man or woman in the country, who feels that we are- -any -t.he less secure in Canada to-day th-an if we had had that drill? And I ask the same question so far as the annual drill this year is concerned. If that drill is to be held it must be held within the next two months. Is there any hon. member in -this House, or any m-an in the country who believes that the people will be one whit securer after the annual drill thi-s year th-an they are at this moment? The item is wholly unnecessary and unwarranted under the circumstances that exist to-day. . We have in ou;r hospitals at the present time hundreds of men returned from overseas who are -still requiring treatment; and there are so-ldie-rs to-day wh-o are asking for something more in- the way of increased pensions. Is it going to -allay feeling through-out the country to have these -annual parades at this particular season? I think the people of this nation have witnessed enough to recall the frightfulness of war, and -a -rest from that sort of thing for at least a period of on-e year wi-lli do much good while it can- do n-o possible harm.
Somethi-ng has been said to-night about increasing these expenditures rather than reducing them. Well, to what will that increas-ed expenditure lead if not to bankruptcy? And of what use will it be to a bankrupt nation to have men for military or naval, purposes, no- matter tow numerous they be? We must get- on a sound financial footing as quickly as possible. When we reach the -position, in -which our ifin-an/ces are sound, then we can afford these extra expenditures if the demand for them should exist. But it has n-ot been shown so far that there exists o.n the pa-rt o-f any individual any fe-a-r from invasion, or that there is any need of an annual drill <fosr the purpose of maintaining law and-order at ho-m-e. I move, therefore, that this item be reduced by $1,150,000, which is the increase over and -above the amount that was voted by the committee last year. In
3676 '

my opinion the whole item should be struck out. But, inasmuch as last year $350,000 was voted I see no objection to our allowing the Government that amount as there may be something we are not aware of at the moment which would require a small expenditure in connection with this particular item. At any rate an increase over and above what was allowed by this Parliament last year for annual drill is wholly unwarranted. No grounds have been given Why this increase should be made. Therefore I hope the committee will support this resolution to save the country at this time this $1,150,000.
Let me just add this further point: We have been imposing new taxes on the consumers of this country and every man, woman and child who is obliged to pay any part of the increased taxes which have been imposed as a result of the discussions that we have had in the last day or two, will contribute in some measure to these military expenditures. If we allow these expenditures which are unnecessary at the present time to. be kept up to the figure asked by the minister we will have to wait just so -much longer before these excess, or excise, taxes, as they are called, can be withdrawn from the people of Canada. Now is the time to economize, now is the time to produce; this is not the time to withdraw men from production ot to increase expenditures which can Teturn no value to the country.


Hugh Guthrie: 
Hugh Guthrie: As near as we can estimate it will require $953,548; that is the total under this item that we expect to spend.


Ernest Lapointe: What was the amount expended before the war for the drilling of city regiments?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot give the figures to-night, but they could be ascertained and I could let my hon. friend have them at a later period of the discussion.-
Mr. LAPOINTE': I think we should have that information before voting this amount. We are told that this item is only for the purpose of the annual drilling of city regiments. Surely we are entitled to know what was the cost of that drilling before the war.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend as wrong in confining the amount to city regiments. This includes alsoi the permanent force which is drilled every year.


Ernest Lapointe: That is why I asked my hon. friend what would be the cost of drilling the city regiments this year?


Hugh Guthrie: The training of the city regiments and the semi-city regiments will absorb $742,000. The other items 'are in reference to the permanent force and are as follows: Transport of the permanent force to and from camps, $17,000; rations of the permanent force in camps, $57,000; forage far 993 permanent corps horses, $50,000; fuel and lights iat camps, $1,000; engineers fitting up camps, $25,000. I assume that all but the first item of $742,000 relate to the permanent force, but that item is the cost af the drilling of the city and the semi-city corps.
-Sir SAM HUGHES: I regret exceedingly, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has not included the rural corps in the annual training.


Mr GUTHRIE:: Not in that estimate.


Samuel Hughes: I regret to hear the opinion expressed that it is detrimental to the interests of any country to take these men from production. There is not a county in Canada to-day but could produce twice as much-if the people would only -work energetically. I do not regard it as a loss to the community at all to have these men take their annual training in camp. The late leader of the Opposition-and I trust his successor to-day will endorse this policy-expressed the opinion many times in the House that every man-not 43,000 or
80,000	men, but every man-between 18 and 60 years of age should be trained and should be obliged to have his rifle ready, and in rural districts his horse and saddle also, and be prepared to turn out in the defence of his country. That would involve a vastly greater sum that is asked by the minister to-day. But I regret that any difference should be made between the city and the rural corps in regard to annual training. I presume the reason is that the minister is not ready to proceed with the training of the rural corps. II would remind the House that in the great war our rural corps proved to be the backbone of our fighting force. They have always done their duty well and turned out in magnificent numbers, and . have shown themselves second to none.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: How many city corps will be sent to the Valcartier Camp for training?


Hugh Guthrie: There will be none sent to Valcartier. The Royal Canadian Regiment will train there. The city corps will train at their own headquarters right where they live.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I understand that the Esltimate of $900,000 is for the training of
43,000	men. Has any Estimate been prepared of the cost of training the rural corps?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. The item as it
appeared in the Estimates is $1,500,000, and it included the drilling of the rural corps up to 80 per cent of their full strength. But for the reasons I have given the rural corps will not be able to turn ouit in strength, and rather than have them come forward in very small detachments it was thought advisable to dispense with their training for the present. If we dispense with their training the estimated cost of training the city and the semi-city corps is $953,000. So there would be a balance on hand on -this vote of $545,000.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I assume the Estimate could be reduced by that amount.


Hugh Guthrie: No, II would not say
that. It has been sanctioned by His Excellency the Governor General as it is now. But things might develop and in the autumn of the year it might become necessary to train the rural corps. I do not know. For some years past the annual training has always takdn place in June. But I remember, the first camp I attended was in September of 1885, in London, and I think that was the best camp I was ever at. So far the rural corps are not in shape to go to camp, and as the item stands now it can be expended only for the purpose for which it is voted.


Samuel Hughes: I should like to point out that no money -publicly expended is so well distributed among the people of the country as is the money voted under this item. The expenditure for annual drill is distributed among forty or fifty thousand men.


Lucien Cannon: The minister has told us that some of the rural corps may be called out for training in the fall. What are these rural corps? Are they in the province of Quebec, in Ontario, or out West?


Hugh Guthrie: If any rural corps in any part of Canada which are at full strength desire to train this year, I think it could be arranged for them. I know that in Western Ontario there are said to be two units fairly well up to strength; it might be possible for these to train. Of course, it depends largely on the decision of the officers. It would be much better to have the regular brigade camps, but this year I do not think it is possible to have them.


Lucien Cannon: Has the minister anything before him to enable him to say that more than two rural corps will be called out for training in the fall?


Hugh Guthrie: The information was at hand and was examined by Militia Council between two and three weeks ago. I am only speaking from recollection as to my part of Western Ontario when I refer to the only two that I know of. It may be that there are others in other parts of the country. But the information which has come to us generally from all parts of Canada is to the effect that we could not have a satisfactory camp of rural corps this year. That is the opinion of officers commanding the rural corps as well as of officers commanding military districts. In these circumstances it would be idle for us to go ahead with the proposal.


Lucien Cannon: What would be the approximate cost of training these two rural corps?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know just what it would cost, but it would cost proportionately a little more to train two than to train a dozen.


Lucien Cannon: Then I understand that the minister has before him information to the effect that 43,000 men belonging to city corps will be trained and that two Ontario rural corps will also be trained?


Hugh Guthrie: I did not say that. I
said there were two that I thought were sufficiently near full strength to train. I did not say there was a probability that these would be trained; there is a possibility.


Lucien Cannon: There is a possibility that they will be trained, and a probability that they will not. So, leaving these rural units out of consideration, I may point out that the minister intends this year to train
43,000	men. The cost of that training will be 8950,000; yet the minister asks the committee to-night for 81,500,000. I do not think that the position taken by the minister is reasonable; he should not ask the committee to vote $600,000 more than he needs, especially if he is sincere, as I believe he is, in his declaration oif willingness to economize.
Amendment (Mr. Mackenzie King) negatived; yeas, 47; nays, 64.


Mr. TURGEON:: I am paired with the
Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster); otherwise I would have voted for the amendment.


Jacques Bureau: I am paired wilth the
member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart); had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


William Stevens Fielding: I am paired with the
right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) ; had I voted I would have voted for Ithe amendment.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I am paired with the
member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton); otherwise I would have voted for the amendment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am paired with the
member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil); had I voted I would have voted against Ithe amendment.


Mr. ROSS:: I was paired with the member for South Waterloo (Mr. Scott); had I voted I would have voted for the amend-menlt.


Frank S. Cahill: How many of the 600,000 men who were enlisted served in the firing line in France?


Hugh Guthrie: I am afraid I have not that information; I did not know that the question would arise on this item. The matter is one which might more properly come up under the Demobilization vote. I have a statement of those who have been returned from overseas since 'the Armistice; that is the nearest I can come to it just now.


Frank S. Cahill: How many were returned since the Armistice?


Hugh Guthrie: The number is 273,565.


Frank S. Cahill: I understand that not more than 350,000 of these 600,000 men have served in France. The minister has made a great display of the sacrifices and the great effort put forth by the Dominion of Canada in recruiting 600,000 men of whom less than 350,000 -went to the front. He has pointed out that this is a great record for any nation. I should like to know if it was necessary in other nations 'to recruit twelve men in order that seven might go to the front, or if it was necessary to retain five in the country fpr every seven who got to the front -as fighting men in the -armies.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think I have the figures as to ho-w many served either in England or in France. The statement which was furnished to the House of Commons on the 10th March and which appears in Hansard of that date reads as follows:
(a) Grand total recruited in Canada for Canadian Expeditionary Force during the war up

to 31st December, 1918, (exclusive of those enlisted for Naval Service, Royal Air Force, Imperial Mechanical Transport, Inland Water Transport, and exclusive of British and Allied reservists) 591,472 ; (b) Enlisted in England up to 31st December, 1918, 1,733 ; (c) Enlisted in Canada for overseas service other than Canadian Expeditionary Force, 21,169 ;	(d) British and Allied Reservists exclusive of (c)) 14,590. Total 628,964.
That does not show how many of these men served in England or France.


Frank S. Cahill: I understand -a statement was made to some -committee of the House giving the number of men who had actually served in France.


Hugh Guthrie: I am sure the figures are on Hansard somewhere. I know the figures have been furnished.
Mr. COPP; The Committee on Re-establishment last year, I think, put the figure at 235,000.


Frank S. Cahill: Would the minister say whether o-uit of .the 628,000, only 235,000 saw active service?


Hugh Guthrie: I have never heard that statement. I think that figure is incorrect.


Frank S. Cahill: What i-s the correct figure?


Hugh Guthrie: It has been furnished to the Hou-s-e. I "would h-ave thought this question would coime up on the Demobilization vote, or I would have been prepared with the figures. This is not a matter which -affects the militia vote.


Frank S. Cahill: The Demobilization vote includes anything that can possibly be included in -any vote.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Steele):: The item before the committee at the present time is item No. 92 referring to annual drill. I have not up to the present interfered with the discussion, but I think it is getting entirely aw-a-y from the item actually before the committee.


Frank S. Cahill: I move that the chairman do now leave the Chair.
Motion negatived.


Frank S. Cahill: The Minister of Militia stated that some- six hundred odd thousand men were enlisted, and when you, Sir, interrupted me I was -asking him how many had seen active service. I should like to have -an answer to that question.


Michael Steele: I would again call the -attention of the hon. -member to the fact that his question has no relation to the item under discussion and I must, therefore, rule his question out of order.


Frank S. Cahill: I-s it in order to rule my question out of order after permitting -the minister to make a statement as to the number of men who have seen active service?


Lucien Cannon: Would the minister state to the committee the period of annual training for the various city battalions? How long will that drill last?


Hugh Guthrie: It -amounts to twelve days' pay for two drills -a day; it is really twenty four drills for twelve days' pay.


Lucien Cannon: What is the average co-s-t per man?


Hugh Guthrie: $1.40 per day for city corps' privates.


Lucien Cannon: What is the average cost per officer?


Hugh Guthrie: I could not give the -average, but I -can give the officers' -pay: lieutenant-colonel, $8; major, $6.50; captain, $5.50; lieutenant, $4; paymaster, $4.75; quartermaster, $4.75; -medical officer, $4.75; chaplain, $6; warrant officer, $2.80; quartermaster sergeant, $2.75; staff sergeant-, $2.30; sergeant, $2; corporal, $1.70; -bugler, $1.50; bandsman, $1.50; private $1.40.


Lucien Cannon: Are there officers ranking above the rank of lieutenant-colonel?


Hugh Guthrie: Not in the militia.


Lucien Cannon: What about officers who were overseas and attained the rank of full coloneil, or brigadier-general, or major-general, and "who have reverted to the militia?


Hugh Guthrie: They retain the brevet
rank overseas, but in the militia the high est rank is lieutenant-colonel. They are entitled to the brevet rank they attained overseas.


Lucien Cannon: Is it the intention of the department to do what is done in France, I understand, namely, to reform the militia list; that is, to give back to each officer the rank to which he is entitled, reducing him in rank although he might have held a superior rank during the war? Is suich a process going to take place as regards our militia?


Hugh Guthrie: That process has taken place in many cases. If a man got a higher rank in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, he is entitled to retain that rank on his brevet rank only. On going back to the militia he will revert to his former rank. That has occurred in the militia and also in the permanent force.


Samuel Hughes: How would the
minister explain the position of an officer who had held the rank'of major at the front and who is now a sergeant in the permanent force?


Hugh Guthrie: In the case put to me
by my hon. friend (Sir Sam Hughes) the man would have the right to elect whether he would revert to his former rank in the permanent force or whether he would retire on pension. If he had been ten years in the service he would be entitled to retire on pension; if he had been less than ten years in the service he would be entitled to retire and obtain a gratuity depending on his length of service.


William Duff: Has the minister appointed any honorary colonels since he took charge of the department, and if so, how many?


Hugh Guthrie: I have not been able to find a victim yet.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the minister ought to agree now to reduce this item by at least $500,000. He has stated that he will very probably not need that extra half million. He has voted down the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition, but according to his own statement the item could be reduced by half a million dollars. That should be done. It would be a step in the right direction. I feel some hesitation in giving this Government any more money than they require because I am not certain how they will use it. I was very much astonished this morning to find that a Bureau of Information is being conducted in this city, and that the money to pay for it is being taken out of the demobilization vote passed last year. I was also shocked to discover a few days ago that we are running a news agency in the city of New York, which it is estimated will cost $30,000 for the year, which amount is also being taken, by Order in Council, out of the demobilization vote of last year. I think therefore it is very unsafe to give to this Government any more money than is actually required, and I would appeal to the minister to agree to at least $500,000 of this amount being struck out without any motion being made to that effect.


Lucien Cannon: The minister said he
would not reduce this amount because he had been authorized by the Governor in Council to introduce a resolution for $1,500,000.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not give that as a reason for not reducing the item.


Lucien Cannon: The minister's contention would be sound if the proposal was to increase the item, but he is irerfeetly at liberty to reduce it, so his argument is no argument at all from the constitutional point of view, nor from the political point of view. Are we the representatives of the people?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Lucien Cannon: I am gratified, Mr. Chairman, after having sat in Ottawa for four months 'this session, that we have at least convinced hon. gentlemen opposite that they are not the representatives of the people.


William Duff: They have just admitted it.


Lucien Cannon: We have their own admission on Hansard. If they do not represent the people, whom do they represent?
Mr. CAiSGRAIN: Themselves.


Joseph Archambault: The trusts.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend from Brantford, in the course of the discussion this evening, talked about the thundering cannon. I may not be the thundering Cannon, but I would just as soon 'be what I am as a screeching plough. And when the hon. gentleman says that he is entitled to speak before this committee because he is the one who pays the taxes, I answer that he does not pay the taxes of this country. If he paid the taxes of this country as he should pay them, the Budget and the Estimates brought down by this Government would be very different. The Budget would not have been prepared and dictated by the manufacturers but by the common people of this country. The time has come, Mr. Chairman, for both the Government and the Opposition to fight in the open, and I will not permit any member of this House, whether he represents Brantford or any other constituency, whether he be- a millionaire like the hon. member for Brantford or a poor man like myself, to suggest to this committee, composed of intelligent men, on this side of the House at least, that because he pays taxes we have no taxes to pay. We know very well that gentlemen on the other side of the House do their very best not to pay the taxes, at least those who belong to the class my hon. friend from Brantford belongs to. I want to have a fair and square fight, and I will not stand for any argument of the kind brought forward by my hon. friend from Brantford.

I say that on the minister's own admission, he only needs for drill halls this year $950,000, not a cent more. We have had enough waste and enough money squandered in Canada. It is time to stop. Money was wasted by hon. gentlemen opposite. Money was squandered by their friends-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Explain.


Lucien Cannon: It is useless to explain; you would not understand. When money was to be wasted or squandered the Whip on the other side of the House did not need to crack his whip for the docile troop of Government supporters would come in and vote the money. These gentlemen may have a majority in Parliament, but they have no following in the country. We have been told that this Government would come out with a programme. Where is their programme? It was to be elaborated at a caucus. When will the caucus be held? Some papers say Monday, others Tuesday, some say this week, others next week. These are the gentlemen who are running Canada. They talk about how great and big this country will become, and they have not even a programme. I heard some one bellow. Will he please speak like a human being.


Mr. HALLADAY:: I asked the hon. gentleman to get down to the subject.


Lucien Cannon: I am corning to the subject and quickly enough. These gentlemen are asking that they be given $600,000 more than they need. What for?


William Duff: Graft,


Lucien Cannon: Who is going to get that $600,000 Friends of the Government-if there are any left? Are we going to give it to newspaper men to write articles in the United States to tell us what a great man the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) is. Are we going to vote $600,000 more than is required by the Government for drill halls, so that we can have it drilled into our minds that the President of the Privy Council is a great man? During the war, follies were committed. This Government would come before the House and say: "We need so much money and it will be used to save the British Empire." The money was always voted. But now the war is over, and these gentlemen will get exactly w7hat they need and not a cent more. I do not think the minister takes a reasonable stand before this committee when he admits that he only needs $950,000 and yet asks Parliament to vote'him $1,500,000. The amendment moved by the leader of the

Opposition should have been adopted and the main motion thrown out.
Item agreed to on division.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 12:18 a.m. Thursday.
Thursday, June 17, 1920.